Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[Missourian]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Oh my heavens! I just saw the stills at the Daily Mail. Unfreaking real.

Cold blooded murder. Thank goodness someone captured this. All over a lousy broken tail light.

I can't believe what I'm looking at.

Yeah, shot for the tail light.

Not for resisting arrest, and running from warrants for the lowest crime of all, failure to support children he fathered.

It's all about the tail light, yeah, right.

It is all about karma.

Pay your fuckin' child support, and you don't have these problems.

You don't get killed in cold blood for child support. Have you seen the pictures or the video?

There's no doubt that this cop blew him away for no reason.

Anybody who watches the COPS TV program knows even the most out of shape officer give foot chase of fleeing suspects. This cop was 33 years old and should have no problem chasing down and tackling a 50 year old.

 

[Asclepias]

Well which one was it? First you claimed there was no offer. Just got caught lying to hide your fear. You just knew that ass would get beat.

You couldn't beat your own ass.

Not into self mutilation. Just knocking out pink monkeys such as yourself if you ever got brave.

You're the one saying I feared you and have been offered 7x the chance to prove it. Sound like a pussy to me.

How did you offer it? You already faked on the real deal. Youre safe on the internet.

I offered the real deal. You said you didn't need to show to know I feared you. Big mouth with little balls that won't back up his claim.

You offered but then you claimed you had to work. You punked out monkey. Its ok but just know I know.

 

[Conservative65]

When are you going to stop being a n*gger?

The difference is that he's not afraid of the word, he owns it. When are you going to stop being so stupid? Shouldn't you own that?

He shouldn't be afraid of it, he is one.

I can't stop doing something I haven't been doing.

You're doing it right now.

That is your worthless opinion.

Well no, it's pretty obvious that you are a very stupid man.

Well no, it's obvious you're either one like Ass Lips or a lover of his kind. You tell me.

 

[Liminal]

Sure monkey. Practically no one believes that. You just punked out.

No, no one believes you.

As long as Conservatives knows I'm good you monkey.

No one that matters thinks you're good for anything but nothing. Got it. Good for nothing.

You dont matter monkey. I'm glad you know and understand that.

Says the descendant of slaves. If your people were so good, how were white people you consider inferior able to hold you ancestors for so long?

I'm pretty sure my ancestors would have given your ancestors the opportunity to clean stables.

 

[Asclepias]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

 

[Conservative65]

You couldn't beat your own ass.

Not into self mutilation. Just knocking out pink monkeys such as yourself if you ever got brave.

You're the one saying I feared you and have been offered 7x the chance to prove it. Sound like a pussy to me.

How did you offer it? You already faked on the real deal. Youre safe on the internet.

I offered the real deal. You said you didn't need to show to know I feared you. Big mouth with little balls that won't back up his claim.

You offered but then you claimed you had to work. You punked out monkey. Its ok but just know I know.

I offered and you said you didn't have to prove what you claimed.

 

[Missourian]

Well, it seems this thread has descended to crap.

 

[Asclepias]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

You said he attacked the police officer. Is this the officers account?

 

[Liminal]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

The officer was no longer in any kind of danger while the suspect was running away.

 

[Asclepias]

Not into self mutilation. Just knocking out pink monkeys such as yourself if you ever got brave.

You're the one saying I feared you and have been offered 7x the chance to prove it. Sound like a pussy to me.

How did you offer it? You already faked on the real deal. Youre safe on the internet.

I offered the real deal. You said you didn't need to show to know I feared you. Big mouth with little balls that won't back up his claim.

You offered but then you claimed you had to work. You punked out monkey. Its ok but just know I know.

I offered and you said you didn't have to prove what you claimed.

Sure monkey. Go back to sleep. No one believes you.

 

[Roadrunner]

Road wouldn't be defending a cold blooded murderer if the victim wasn't black.

Liar.






I have not defending the cop, but I have defended due process of law.

Had this guy followed due process of law, and submitted to a lawful arrest based on lawful warrants he would be alive today.

 

[Conservative65]

No, no one believes you.

As long as Conservatives knows I'm good you monkey.

No one that matters thinks you're good for anything but nothing. Got it. Good for nothing.

You dont matter monkey. I'm glad you know and understand that.

Says the descendant of slaves. If your people were so good, how were white people you consider inferior able to hold you ancestors for so long?

Monkeys are great at violence. Especially when they outnumber the people they enslave. Once they become aware the ratio is not 100 to 1 they become fearful like you when you punked out. Remember?

That assumes every white person owned slaves.

If your people are so superior, why would the ratio matter?

 

[Conservative65]

You're the one saying I feared you and have been offered 7x the chance to prove it. Sound like a pussy to me.

How did you offer it? You already faked on the real deal. Youre safe on the internet.

I offered the real deal. You said you didn't need to show to know I feared you. Big mouth with little balls that won't back up his claim.

You offered but then you claimed you had to work. You punked out monkey. Its ok but just know I know.

I offered and you said you didn't have to prove what you claimed.

Sure monkey. Go back to sleep. No one believes you.

Now, you're a liar.

 

[Liminal]

Road wouldn't be defending a cold blooded murderer if the victim wasn't black.

Liar.






I have not defending the cop, but I have defended due process of law.

Had this guy followed due process of law, and submitted to a lawful arrest based on lawful warrants he would be alive today.

Due process of the law doesn't give police officers the option of killing suspects because they run away.

 

[Roadrunner]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

The officer was no longer in any kind of danger while the suspect was running away.

The officer has also been arrested and charged.

The system is working.

Where's the beef?

 

[Asclepias]

As long as Conservatives knows I'm good you monkey.

No one that matters thinks you're good for anything but nothing. Got it. Good for nothing.

You dont matter monkey. I'm glad you know and understand that.

Says the descendant of slaves. If your people were so good, how were white people you consider inferior able to hold you ancestors for so long?

Monkeys are great at violence. Especially when they outnumber the people they enslave. Once they become aware the ratio is not 100 to 1 they become fearful like you when you punked out. Remember?

That assumes every white person owned slaves.

If your people are so superior, why would the ratio matter?

No actually it doesnt. I know english is hard for you as a monkey.

Our people are not superior at violence. Your people are when they outnumber my people 100 to 1.

 

[Roadrunner]

Road wouldn't be defending a cold blooded murderer if the victim wasn't black.

Liar.






I have not defending the cop, but I have defended due process of law.

Had this guy followed due process of law, and submitted to a lawful arrest based on lawful warrants he would be alive today.

Due process of the law doesn't give police officers the option of killing suspects because they run away.

Well, yes, in some cases it does.

That is for a jury, not for internet vigilantes.

 

[Asclepias]

How did you offer it? You already faked on the real deal. Youre safe on the internet.

I offered the real deal. You said you didn't need to show to know I feared you. Big mouth with little balls that won't back up his claim.

You offered but then you claimed you had to work. You punked out monkey. Its ok but just know I know.

I offered and you said you didn't have to prove what you claimed.

Sure monkey. Go back to sleep. No one believes you.

Now, you're a liar.

Youre still a monkey that no one believes. Go back to sleep.

 

[Conservative65]

No, no one believes you.

As long as Conservatives knows I'm good you monkey.

No one that matters thinks you're good for anything but nothing. Got it. Good for nothing.

You dont matter monkey. I'm glad you know and understand that.

Says the descendant of slaves. If your people were so good, how were white people you consider inferior able to hold you ancestors for so long?

I'm pretty sure my ancestors would have given your ancestors the opportunity to clean stables.

Your ancestors were white trash that had nothing to offer. It's easy to see based on the low class descendants they produced.