I thought this mught be relevant to the discussion. Proposed law makes it a crime for LE to shoot someone holding a imitation gun.
ttps://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/proposed-law-says-suspects-with-imitation-weapons-can-t-be-shot-by-police-Wz28jHQvuUuIVTOlvhs83A/?full=1
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Very interesting thread and I hope more LE contribute their thoughts.
As a normal law abiding citizen (or at least pretty close) I have my own thoughts on how some of the shootings have happened.
I have never been in LE shoes- but have enough combat experience to know that split second decisions are easy to second guess.
This country needs an enema- Blues approved sig line
The Media doesn’t but in Scott v. Harris the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the “relative culpability” posed by the suspects actions.Originally Posted by LSP552
Scott v. Harris involved the use of a PIT maneuver against a drunk driver fleeing police and crossing into oncoming traffic but legally use of force is a fourth amendment seizure regardless of form.
SCOTT v. HARRIS
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 05–1631. Argued February 26, 2007—Decided April 30, 2007
Deputy Timothy Scott, petitioner here, terminated a high-speed pursuit of respondent’s car by applying his push bumper to the rear of the vehicle, causing it to leave the road and crash. Respondent was rendered quadriplegic. He filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging, inter alia, the use of excessive force resulting in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied Scott’s summary judgment motion, which was based on qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on interlocutory appeal, concluding, inter alia, that Scott’s actions could constitute “deadly force” under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1; that the use of such force in this context would violate respondent’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force during a seizure; and that a reasonable jury could so find.
Held: Because the car chase respondent initiated posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others, Scott’s attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, and Scott is entitled to summary judgment. Pp. 3–13.
(a) Qualified immunity requires resolution of a “threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201. Pp. 3–4.
(b) The record in this case includes a videotape capturing the events in question. Where, as here, the record blatantly contradicts the plaintiff’s version of events so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a summary judgment motion. Pp. 5–8.
(c) Viewing the facts in the light depicted by the videotape, it is clear that Deputy Scott did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 8–13.
(i) Garner did not establish a magical on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officer’s actions constitute “deadly force.” The Court there simply applied the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” test to the use of a particular type of force in a particular situation. That case has scant applicability to this one, which has vastly different facts. Whether or not Scott’s actions constituted “deadly force,” what matters is whether those actions were reasonable. Pp. 8–10.
(ii) In determining a seizure’s reasonableness, the Court balances the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests allegedly justifying the intrusion. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 703. In weighing the high likelihood of serious injury or death to respondent that Scott’s actions posed against the actual and imminent threat that respondent posed to the lives of others, the Court takes account of the number of lives at risk and the relative culpability of the parties involved. Respondent intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in reckless, high-speed flight; those who might have been harmed had Scott not forced respondent off the road were entirely innocent. The Court concludes that it was reasonable for Scott to take the action he did. It rejects respondent’s argument that safety could have been assured if the police simply ceased their pursuit. The Court rules that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death. Pp. 10–13.
Last edited by HCM; 04-04-2018 at 08:45 PM.
The very idea is the purest piece of ignorance I’ve seen in a long time.
Btw your link is bad.
Last edited by HCM; 04-04-2018 at 08:47 PM.
I was going to say the "You're Fucked" AR15 dustcover shooting incident, but then I remembered the cops were called to the hotel because the guy was drunk and pointing a gun (ended up being a BB gun) at people from his hotel window.
Yeah, you're right.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
French’s article contains a lot of “smoke” half truths presented in a light solely to favor his argument. For example French’s argument that young soldiers routinely excercise the same level of independent judgement as cops for “less pay” is ludicrous. There is a whole chain of command from officers and JAGs like French to NCOs intentionally narrowing that privates options. It is not just apples to oranges, it is like comparing apples to octopuses.
As far as Greg Elifritz, some of his technical analysis and training methodology is good but honestly he has been a full time training officer in cupcake area for years. All policing is local. The hands off approach he advocates might work in his town but doesn’t work in high crime areas. Cops are paid to be curious and should be out turning over rocks, not just waiting for 911 calls or things to fall into their lap. His “ don’t stop people for traffic / expired tags etc” argument really rubs me the wrong way. Just because you stop them doesn’t mean you can simply issue a warning if nothing more is amiss.
His argument with Dunphy and French’s claim that because no cop has been killed in Sacramento since 1999 there is somehow less risk in each unknown encounter is simply ridiculous. If I flip a coin every day do the odds of each individual flip resulting in tails change from day to day ?
Last edited by HCM; 04-04-2018 at 09:07 PM.
That's because it's all about selling newspapers and sensationalizing these stories gets attention they sell syndications and the writers get their names recognized and pundits get hired by the Network's. It truly is using these incidents to make money.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Wasn't there a shooting in Minneapolis, when the cop shot the Australian woman from the car?
Not a valid example - the shooting was clearly not reasonable under the Objective reasonableness standards found in the Garner, Graham and Scott decisions, hence why the officer was charged criminally.
Not to mention that particular officer should have never been there in the first place. He was a Special snowflake cop who repeatly failed training standards but was pushed through anyway because having the first cop from this particular ethnic group was a local politician's pet project. In the end he did the ethnic group a disservice by pushing through an unsuitable and unqualified candidate. It will both dissuade other members of that ethnic group from applying and give those who do apply a harder road going forward.
The articles were not as bad as what I thought they would be, but it is clearly written by someone who has never been a cop. Not that you are not qualified to comment on the subject unless you are a cop. Of course non cops can be right and shed wisdom on the subject.
Reply With Quote