Thismay have been a mistake, but cops are improperly trained, the recruitment process is a joke and unnecessary force and fining seems to be most departments prime directive. No knock raids, shooting pets, flash banging babies (gigitty), shooting handcuffed people in the back, stealing cash, stealing cars, confiscating legally possesed weapons, raping women, randomly pepper spraying people walking down the street - the list goes on and on. There is absolutely no justification for many of these acts other than the officers should have never been hired in the first place. But what do you expect when the roles of peace keeper are being intentionally filled by soldiers trained to work in war zones?
^^^ And that positions of power attract the worst type of people humanity has to offer, Sociopaths and psychopaths. Most normal, sane people don't crave unlimited power over other human beings.
Do we know the reason the cops are there? As I see it on video the guy looks like he threw a rock and hit one cop in the back of a bullet proof vest. You can see it bouncing away, the cop had zero reaction of being in any pain. He didn't hit him in the head I can tell you that. Then 5 shots fired. Where did those bullets go? You see all the people around? The guy flees first walking with his hands up then tries to run. As the cops approach he turns to defend himself after being shot at and possibly hit multiple times. Then another 10 (?) shots within 10 feet. This is a gross abuse of power. Three men, armed men with more back up at there disposal. Tgey were Wearing armor and beind attacked by a man with a rock, they shoot over 15 shots in a busy intersection. If I were around I would be livid! These ass clowns put multiple lives at risk over some dude with a rock. Its fucking disgusting and I can't believe anyone could view it as justified. Yuri what if you had children who were on the block watching or in a near by car. Would you feel they were more threatened by a rock or 15 bullets flying around to stop guy with rock? Im so tired of this bullshit. If a cop jumps in front of a moving vehicle he is justified in shooting because he was in danger. Its not like tge person tried to run him over he put himself in harms way. If you run from cops and they get hurt (twist ankle)you are charged with assaulting a officer. Laws concerning them..... In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer. Now us....... When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force. The double standards are eroding there reputation, the lack of responsibility, and the characters of a lot of these cops are incredibly.
I think the officers have the training and discretion to determine if the initial shooting at the rock throwing suspect was safe. I think that yes, they should not have shot at him for throwing rocks, and tried to take cover and find another way to resolve it. But technically speaking, it was justified. Especially when the idiot jolted around when the police were behind him and flung his hands out. Honestly at first glance that dumb move could look like suicide by cop. Also you are incorrect about self defense by a citizen. The reasonableness rule does apply. The citizen must decide if he is facing a threat and make a decision based on it. It's not much different from a cop. Cops have more leeway though. Cops have to prove their deadly force was justified, with more leeway, as do citizens. Cops having more leeway on the matter makes for the illusion that they can do as they see fit with no concern of ramifications, but the reality is that the cop still must be able to defend his actions. Unless there is just crooked business afoot. On the same note, civilians can get away with murder in a similar way. Look at OJ Simpson.
Technically speaking?! You mean the same technicalities that enable your local corperatly/fed funded police chief/sheriff put crappy cops on the streets in the first place? I don't know what technicalities you are sighting, but the ideal police officer is supposed to uphold justice, be courageous and protect civilians. It is not courageous for four cops to gang up, and pull their sidearms, on a dude with rocks. Cops have a bad rep for very good reason, because after all, if they had the public's well being in mind they wouldn't spend most of their time fining people for minor offences.
And yet if I, a normal civilian, was the target of a man throwing rocks at me ( and I am I'll tempered as well mind you) I would not pull my gun on him even if I had one on me, especially if I had a few of my buddies with me. This is where the reasonable force debate comes in: because although it is possible the man who is throwing rocks has a gun, he probably doesn't - hence the rocks being thrown and bullets NOT being fired by the decest in the initial encounter. It can be reasonably inferred that this man is not a real threat, especially to a gang of flamboyantly well armed people. So, if I in this situation saw my hand I don't even see a need to draw my pepper spray. The worst the dead dude could do after drawing my gangs ire, with his poorly thrown rock that harmed no one, was run away - which is exactly what he tried to do. I would chase, and if caught might ruffle up a bit if he hadent shown adequate remorse, but I wouldn't have killed the asshole... And considering the state of affairs the guy in this video might not have been such an asshole anyway.
You don't operate on probability in possible/actual life or death situations, you operate on dealing with the worst case scenario. Although the robber could decide to kill everyone in the store out of nowhere, he probably won't, so I won't shoot him before he can. By then the robber has the upper hand.
^this, exactly. I'm from the area and Pasco police are probably the least shitty of the bunch. Sensi silver haze: http://forum.grasscity.com/absolute-beginners/1355262-take-look-any-comments.html The only good is knowledge, the only evil, ignorance.
If I operated on worst case scenario I would kill someone every week. Anyone who operates under such things is a really dumb pussy.
Please give me an example of a situation you encounter on a weekly basis that would require you to kill someone in self defense. This world is survival of the fittest and from the sound of it you need some work on that.
Put your kid or family member or anyone you know in that guys place. Now imagine watching this video, him being shot multiple times, around 10 in the last part. This is excessive force no doubt in the world. ...I think its murder. If this evidence was shown and any of us instead of policeman did this. I assure you we would be charged 99% of the time. For a citizen to get away with murder it has to be proven that there life was in danger. This video shows without a doubt that, that criteria was NOT met.
Last night I had a guy tell me to die and he had a hand in his pocket... I get I'm going to kill you a lot, fuck yous, and shit thrown at me occasionally. I've been attacked, had knives pulled and even had a guns flashed, and never once did I pull a gun. But I'm a private citizen, so if I shoot someone who hasn't already killed a couple people I go to prison.
Sounds like you'e had some justifiable self defense situations. Or you live in a faux-commie state like NYC.
Traditional Self Defense The law governing self defense does not excuse any violent act just because another person struck the first blow or made a violent threat. Traditional self defense laws require a person who is being attacked or threatened with imminent attack to act reasonably and retreat if possible without taking any physical action, anduse only the amount of force reasonably necessary to fend off the attacker. Retreat if possible If an able-bodied man raises a fist or hits another able-bodied man, under traditional self defense laws the victim must walk away if possible. If the victim is charged with a crime and claims self defense, the jury must consider whether the victim had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and did not take it. If the victim could easily have left the room or walked away from the offender, the victim's use of physical force might not constitute self defense. To support a successful self-defense argument, the evidence must show that the victim could not retreat-for example, that he could not get away because the attack was ongoing, he was trapped with the aggressor behind a locked door, the aggressor blocked the exit, or the victim tried to leave or walk away and the aggressor followed him. Reasonable force If the victim could not retreat, the jury usually next must consider whether the victim was reasonably in fear for his physical safety and whether any force the victim used was reasonable. The test is often whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would be afraid and would act as the defendant did. Under traditional self defense laws, the act of brandishing or using a gun is evaluated like any other use of force. The primary question is whether using a gun was reasonable or reasonably necessary under the circumstances. A victim cannot instantly pull a gun and shoot an attacker who raises a fist or slaps or punches the victim without trying to fend him off in some other way, because this amounts to using more force than was reasonably necessary to stop the attack. If a person uses deadly force to fend off an attack, he must have been in fear that he was about to be gravely injured or killed. The victim also must have had a reasonable basis for fearing for his life, such as dealing with an aggressor who was pointing a gun, wielding another deadly weapon, or acting in a way that could cause death or serious bodily harm. What if the aggressor doesn't have a gun? The facts of the situation are always very important when it comes to questions of self defense. If an attacker waives or shoots a gun, pulling a gun or shooting back usually will constitute self defense. In some situations, using a gun in self defense also may be appropriate even if the aggressor does not have a gun. For instance, if an attacker has another deadly weapon such as a knife, a metal bar or a baseball bat, using a gun can be considered reasonable if the victim can't access any other weapon. A victim also might be justified in showing a weapon and warning that he will shoot if necessary, even if the aggressor has no weapon and is threatening or attacking the victim with his fists or other parts of body. If the victim who brandished the gun is charged with threatening another person with a deadly weapon, he can present evidence that he showed the gun in self defense-to get the assailant to back off. The “Castle Doctrine†In general, people who are under attack in their own homes don't need to retreat or try to escape, even if they can do so safely. Instead, they can typically “stand their ground†and use force-even enough force to kill-if they are in apparent danger of serious injury. The theory is that people shouldn't have to run within or from their own homes-that they should be free to defend their “castles.†“Stand Your Ground†As many as 32 states recently have adopted “stand your ground†laws that expand traditional self defense laws and extend the castle doctrine to confrontations outside a person's home. (For more information on the stand your ground defense, see "Stand Your Ground" New Trends in Self-Defense Law.) The stand your ground defense may apply and permit a victim to brandish or use a firearm, depending on state law, in the following situations: Beyond the house. If a person is confronted in his vehicle or on his residential property including the driveway, swimming pool area, or land around the home, he may respond with a firearm.A public place. If an aggressor uses force or threatens violence against another in a public place, the person being attacked or threatened has no duty to choose an apparent safe way to retreat, and may instead use the amount of reasonable force necessary to fend off the attacker.
So now its okay for them to shoot first, justifying their paranoid kneejerk reactions? This is acceptable because its us vs them. They can protect themselves from us because their lives are more important. They dont need any other justification to shoot you. They are not there to protect, they are there to bully and enforce. They harass you over license plates,insurance, stickers, driver license (demanding papers anyone?), loud exhaust, speeding/speedtraps, burning out, tinted windows, loud audio system, dui check points, texting, talking on the phone, eating while driving, steal your belongings, break into your house tossing flashbangs, search your car through your windows without a warrant and on and on and on. They are not a peace force they are paramilitary law enforcement. What percentage of their resources and time are actually spent serving us and what percentage harassing us? They drive black military-style vehicles, have flashing lights so bright its distractive to other drivers, shine a spot light on you that floods the road, walk up on you with military gear, shining a flashlight in your face and question the shit out of you like a criminal. They are trained to be aggressive, this is but a result. Did they need to confront and murder him? To defend this behavior is abhorrent.
Gun control strawman - using a gun in self defense doesn't mean using leathal force Obviously if you kill someone in self defense it is difficult to prove your own innocence. But guns are used more as threats than deadly killing tools. It is 100% justified to shoot someone who has a knife or gun and is threatening your life. But you should probly not shoot them in a vital spot. Not if you want to prove it was self defense. -yuri
Lol you don't pick and choose where to shoot in a self defense situation. You shoot to kill first, ask questions later.