How did this happen: Officer charged with killing unarmed driver lying facedown

[Agit8r]

However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?

I get it now. Since y'all are afraid of certain peoples, you want to be able to shoot them without any consequences. Pretty transparent that that's what all the "stand your ground" laws are intended to do. I shouldn't be surprised, because y'all are anti-american on every other issue as well.

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

 

[Oldstyle]

In case you folks haven't taken note...Police are being shot throughout the country. Incidences like this one are going to be the result. To be blunt...the cops are on edge and to be honest, I can't see as I blame them.

 

[The Professor]

Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.

Nope. Not true. Sorry. Someone can have their back turned as they are drawing a weapon.

Police also have the right to shoot a dangerous felon in the back to prevent him from escaping. If someone is stopped for

Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.

Nope. Not true. Sorry. Someone can have their back turned as they are drawing a weapon.

You are correct.

Police also have the right to use deadly force to prevent a dangerous felon from escaping. If a man who is wanted on murder charges is running away, the police have the right to shoot him in the back to stop him. This lawful use of deadly force applies only to dangerous felons. If someone is stopped for an expired inspection sticker and runs away from the police, deadly force cannot be used to prevent his escape. So saith the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Agit8r]

Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.

Nope. Not true. Sorry. Someone can have their back turned as they are drawing a weapon.

Police also have the right to shoot a dangerous felon in the back to prevent him from escaping. If someone is stopped for

Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.

Nope. Not true. Sorry. Someone can have their back turned as they are drawing a weapon.

You are correct.

Police also have the right to use deadly force to prevent a dangerous felon from escaping. If a man who is wanted on murder charges is running away, the police have the right to shoot him in the back to stop him. This lawful use of deadly force applies only to dangerous felons. If someone is stopped for an expired inspection sticker and runs away from the police, deadly force cannot be used to prevent his escape. So saith the Supreme Court of the United States.

And I suppose if they hit innocent bystanders, that isn't considered manslaughter? If police are able to do whatever they want, freedom is a fiction.

"It has been said too that our governments both federal and particular want energy... This is true, and it is an inconvenience. On the other hand that energy which absolute governments derive from an armed force, which is the effect of the bayonet constantly held at the breast of every citizen, and which resembles very much the stillness of the grave, must be admitted also to have it's inconveniences"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from Answer to Demeunier's Queries (Jan. 24, 1786)

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Police also have the right to shoot a dangerous felon in the back to prevent him from escaping. If someone is stopped for " does not apply. The suspect was on his stomach.

 

[there4eyeM]

In her situation, what would be the reason you would think a person would not show his/her hands?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who knows? Was there a weapon of any kind found?

 

[Muhammed]

Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.

Nope. Not true. Sorry. Someone can have their back turned as they are drawing a weapon.

However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

Generally, yes they can fire a weapon behind their back. It's not difficult at all.

 

[airplanemechanic]

am, please stay with the situation. The guy was flat on his stomach, had just been shot in the back, and Ms Officer waited four seconds and shot him again.

I never commented on the situation. I am referring to the forum member who stated "any time someone is shot in the back it is automatically murder." That is candidly false and I was giving several different scenarios which make it so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But we are dealing with this situation.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It doesn't matter. He stated a falsehood REGARDING THIS SITUATION and was corrected.

What are you, a moderator?

 

[MikeK]

Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.

Not necessarily. Individual circumstances must be closely examined before such a determination is made.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The cop is white and the suspect black.

So of course the white cop is guilty.

I'm sure that even Rev. Al and Obama would agree, ......

So of course the white cop felt scared enough to kill. Black people are sceery.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Based on the OP, sounds like a good shoot to me. Fleeing from police puts everything that happens thereafter on the suspect. You then start gettng squirly sticking your hands in your pockets or waistband you're gonna get shot.

No it doesn't. The police are actually responsible for their own actions. Its called "personal responsibility" - have you ever heard of it? Only applies to blacks and liberals, right? You white righties get to just blame everyone else for anything bad you do. How convenient.

 

[MikeK]

That is what she is saying. Let's see what other evidence might exist.

Things we need to know:

Did she see a weapon?

Did she have a Taser?

Did she have pepper spray?

Et al.

 

[MikeK]

In her situation, what would be the reason you would think a person would not show his/her hands?

I don't know about today but the Marine Corps of the 1950s did not permit Woman Marines to serve in combat line companies. The reason for that is thorough testing had determined that women are neither physically nor psychologically capable of enduring the rigors of sustained combat conditions.

Where the civilian police occupation is concerned, while there are exceptions ordinary women are generally not capable of physically restraining ordinary men. That is a simple, natural fact. And for that reason female police officers should not be assigned to certain patrol functions, nor should they be assigned to patrol alone.

I know nothing more about the topic situation than is described here. But it readily occurs to me that if the cop had been a physically adequate male rather than a female he might not have needed to use his firearm to restrain that subject.

I often watch the tv ride-along documentary, COPS in which I have seen more than one example of female police officers being tossed around by male subjects they were trying to arrest -- and were it not for the intervention of male officers there is no question that these females would have been disarmed and completely overcome. In several other situations the female officer's first resort was to draw her firearm.

If I were a supervisory police official, unless a subordinate female officer could demonstrate exceptional physical competence I would not permit her assignment to ordinary patrol functions, or to patrol in certain high-risk areas, or to patrol alone. There are many other functions which female police officers are better suited to.

On COPS I've also seen many examples of male police officers who simply are not physically suited to the police occupation. So it's not only women cops who are not up to the task.

 

[westwall]

However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?

I get it now. Since y'all are afraid of certain peoples, you want to be able to shoot them without any consequences. Pretty transparent that that's what all the "stand your ground" laws are intended to do. I shouldn't be surprised, because y'all are anti-american on every other issue as well.

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

Blacks have benefited more from the stand your ground laws than anyone else.

 

[Agit8r]

However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?

I get it now. Since y'all are afraid of certain peoples, you want to be able to shoot them without any consequences. Pretty transparent that that's what all the "stand your ground" laws are intended to do. I shouldn't be surprised, because y'all are anti-american on every other issue as well.

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

Blacks have benefited more from the stand your ground laws than anyone else.

link?

 

[westwall]

However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?

I get it now. Since y'all are afraid of certain peoples, you want to be able to shoot them without any consequences. Pretty transparent that that's what all the "stand your ground" laws are intended to do. I shouldn't be surprised, because y'all are anti-american on every other issue as well.

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

Blacks have benefited more from the stand your ground laws than anyone else.

link?

By the figures provided here blacks who make up 15% of the population have been responsible for a third of the SYG cases.


Stand your ground law Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy Tampa Bay Times

 

[Agit8r]

However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?

I get it now. Since y'all are afraid of certain peoples, you want to be able to shoot them without any consequences. Pretty transparent that that's what all the "stand your ground" laws are intended to do. I shouldn't be surprised, because y'all are anti-american on every other issue as well.

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

Blacks have benefited more from the stand your ground laws than anyone else.

link?

By the figures provided here blacks who make up 15% of the population have been responsible for a third of the SYG cases.


Stand your ground law Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy Tampa Bay Times

I'll try to decipher those statistics more when I have time, but regardless; if murderers are going free, that isn't helping the community. It just encourages more chaos.