You will have the progressive statists desired results. Heck you won稚 even need bail reform is nobody ever gets arrested.Originally Posted by fixer
You will have the progressive statists desired results. Heck you won稚 even need bail reform is nobody ever gets arrested.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
I was going to add something about that to the post but I figured I'd just deal with the current situation. But yep...that was prominent in my mind.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Never been there. Don't think I'll go. I like it here just fine.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Fast food matters. You can't just go around burning down fast food places because the coffee sucks or they change the menu at 11 AM. Or maybe you can now, I don't know.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
We, in the state of Ohio were trained for just that when first I was employed as a Deputy Sheriff in the mid-80s. Of course new "best practices" have beem implemented, but the objective remains the same.
That's what it used to be alright. We went from "Use of Force" reports to "Response to Resistance" forms during that transition. It was the same damned form almost to the letter, just renamed for better optics.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
There's a difference between dereliction of duty and/or various administrative penalties and a legal requirement to regain control, which was the specific statement I was addressing.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
University Ave and SW ATL are bad places to be no matter what time of day. There have been attempts to gentrify certain areas and rename some of the roads. Some of the worst projects were knocked down and the residents shuffled around. I am glad we don't have to catch any calls in that area, especially now.
Men freely believe that which they desire.
Julius Caesar
Yeah ok I知 tracking... can you expand on the difference?
The police responsibility is to the general public. They have no obligation to protect individual persons absent a special relationship. As an example, if a women calls to report that her ex-husband has violated a restraining order and she is fearful he will return, if the police take a report, tell the women they will try to locate her ex-husband, and to call if he returns, they have not established a special relationship. On the other hand, if the same facts exist and the police tell the woman that they will have a patrol unit sit down the block to watch for her ex-husband to return, they have established a special relationship.
So no, there was no duty to protect in this case.
IMO, the two cases under which the officers actions fall under the purview of are Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor.
In Garner, the Supreme Court held that the use of lethal force to apprehend a fleeing suspect (prevent escape) is a seizure under the 4th Amendment, and that as a result, the officer has to have probable cause to believe:
1) the person has committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or great bodily harm;
2) that the person will be a continued threat if they are allowed to escape;
3) there are no other reasonable means to make the arrest;
or
4) the subject is using a deadly weapon to make their escape.
So, if the officer claims to have used deadly force to prevent the escape of this guy 'protect the public' those elements would have to have been met.
Read Garner, it is interesting: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1956044 (click 'case' for detailed analysis of the court)
It is likely the officer fired to protect himself. IMO, under that circumstance the guiding case would be Graham. Graham is notable for making several notable distinctions as to how officers are judged:
* The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
* And its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
* The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. Its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including: (this is known as the Three-pronged Test)
1) The severity of the crime at issue;
2) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and
3) Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
So, the crux of the matter is 'would a reasonable officer. having the same information, have perceived the necessity of using lethal force to protect himself/herself.'
This is where dueling expert witnesses often come into the picture.
Read Graham, the case from which this decision arose may surprise you: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/ (again, click 'case' to get the insight)
There you guys go quoting all those court cases and established case law. Personally, I just want to see the mayor volunteer to take a taser shot in the face to show the troops it痴 no big deal.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
Reply With Quote