Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 12, 2015, 03:26:54 AM
-
And raises an interesting point. He calls it manslaughter
Whats south carolina law? How far into the process can they amend a charge?
And to play devils advocate did they overcharge to press for a plea? Or did they do it so as to facilitate an acquittal they can blame on a fickle jury or a judges interpretation of law.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
And heres a lil piece on how lesser included charges can workout.
It gets complicated
http://groselawfirm.com/2014/03/blog/who-decides-whether-the-jurors-consider-the-lesser-included-offenses-trial-judge-or-defendant/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
And raises an interesting point. He calls it manslaughter
Where is his law degree from, again?
-
Where is his law degree from, again?
He found it in Al Capone's vault.
-
gerald rivers has yet to voice a cogent comment.
-
Where is his law degree from, again?
Brooklyn Law School, class of 1969.
-
Interesting enchanced video and breakdown frame by frame. Along with a combined video with dispatch calls
Trigger warning does not fit the approved narrative
This is more and more like the mike brown story everyday just higher spf of the believers
Its interesting how the riots are paying off by scaring folks into making judgements and decisions.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Brooklyn Law School, class of 1969.
Oh snap. Don't forget him working as a police investigator as well
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Let me explain this to you, and I'll use small words so you understand.
What happened before does not matter. Any struggle, fight, physical contact prior to the suspect breaking contact and running matters not.
Once he kicks into Monty Python mode ("Run Away"), the use of deadly force is no longer an option. The police are there to arrest. Period. End. Full Stop. They are not judge, jury and/or executioner.
Again, you have to be able to articulate a threat to you or someone else. An unarmed suspect fleeing is NOT a threat. Therefore the police may NOT use deadly force. Period. End. Full Stop. Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is murder and should be charged as such.
-
That may be the way the law reads, but it all depends on if the jury will give him some benefit of the doubt and agree to lesser charges. What can a defense attorney do with that?
-
That is very interesting as there was a lot of outrage and "hang'em high" attitude before when people thought he planted the taser pistol.
Interesting enchanced video and breakdown frame by frame. Along with a combined video with dispatch calls
Trigger warning does not fit the approved narrative
This is more and more like the mike brown story everyday just higher spf of the believers
Its interesting how the riots are paying off by scaring folks into making judgements and decisions.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I think one of the big problems in discussing controversial shoots like this is that many online make up their mind on guilt early on and refuse to acknowledge new information they didn't know when they first made up their mind. This may be one reason why don't want jurors discussing the case until after the arguments when deliberations start.
How would it change your view if the officer thought the guy still had the taser?
-
I think one of the big problems in discussing controversial shoots like this is that many online make up their mind on guilt early on and refuse to acknowledge new information they didn't know when they first made up their mind. This may be one reason why don't want jurors discussing the case until after the arguments when deliberations start.
How would it change your view if the officer thought the guy still had the taser?
That wouldn't change my view. What's the effective distance on a taser? A taser is not a deadly weapon, but a less lethal compliance tool. Running away from the officer and not pointing a weapon at anyone?
Nope.
-
I think one of the big problems in discussing controversial shoots like this is that many online make up their mind on guilt early on and refuse to acknowledge new information they didn't know when they first made up their mind. This may be one reason why don't want jurors discussing the case until after the arguments when deliberations start.
How would it change your view if the officer thought the guy still had the taser?
I think folks get emotionally invested and it's hard to let go of a point of view. In some cases it predates the incident and is beyond change
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I think one of the big problems in discussing controversial shoots like this is that many online make up their mind on guilt early on and refuse to acknowledge new information they didn't know when they first made up their mind.
My best friend, a liberal's liberal, still clings to the idea that Zimmerman was stalking Martin, that Zimmerman didn't stop following, that Zimmerman didn't return to his vehicle, and that Zimmerman was not being beaten when he shot.
Some notions just die hard.
-
That wouldn't change my view. What's the effective distance on a taser? A taser is not a deadly weapon, but a less lethal compliance tool. Running away from the officer and not pointing a weapon at anyone?
Nope.
If (big if) the officer had reason to believe that Scott could still was going to use the taser against him, why would it matter whether the taser is non-lethal? The officer (in this big-if scenario) would reasonably fear that Scott would use it to overpower him, and cause grave injury or death. Not so? Wouldn't any one of us be justified in shooting an attacker, IF we reasonably believed they were about to taser us?
Edited, per jj's reply
-
If (big if) the officer had reason to believe that Scott could still use the taser against him, why would it matter whether the taser is non-lethal? The officer (in this big-if scenario) would reasonably fear that Scott, having taken the taser, would use it to overpower him, and cause grave injury or death. Not so? Wouldn't any one of us be justified in shooting an attacker, IF we reasonably believed they were about to taser us?
In the video, when he begins shooting, the decedent is running away. I don't believe it reasonable to think that he could believe the taser would be used against him in that situation. I am also doubtful that he was within the range of a taser at that point.
If he had turned to charge, like Brown, or had stayed in close contact with the officer, I think this would be a different conversation.
-
Every time I read this thread, I'm reminded of an incident from 9 years ago here. Two detectives arrest 2 young men for suspicion of murder. One is found to have a .45 in his pocket. Both are handcuffed and placed in cruisers. One of them gets his hands from his back to his front (still cuffed), gets out of the car, and commences to run. Cops shoot and kill fleeing handcuffed suspect.
One month later...
"Las Vegas Police Officers Actions Found Justifiable" -KLAS TV News, Las Vegas.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen)
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4990822/las-vegas-police-officers-actions-found-justifiable (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4990822/las-vegas-police-officers-actions-found-justifiable)
-
In the video, when he begins shooting, the decedent is running away. I don't believe it reasonable to think that he could believe the taser would be used against him in that situation. I am also doubtful that he was within the range of a taser at that point.
If he had turned to charge, like Brown, or had stayed in close contact with the officer, I think this would be a different conversation.
That I would agree with. My point was that the less-lethal nature of the taser shouldn't be a factor.
-
From the video, you can see the taser wires that lead from the barbs to the taser itself. Once those are deployed, the only way to use the taser is to put a fresh set of barbs on or remove the barb container and use it hands on.
-
Not even considering the video evidence, I think the cop being arrested and charged with murder is a good indication that there isn't much chance at all of the cop being in the right in this shooting. If there was evidence that the cop could have been in the right then it would be a more normal officer involved shooting investigation rather than the officer being pretty much immediately arrested and charged.
-
Shortly after I arrived in Baumholder a Courts Martial of a female MP from another MP Company began. The facts of the incident are thus:
Friday night and downtown at the Metropol a fight breaks out (which at that place, was like saying water is wet and the sky is blue. Usually there were several fights a night there. Worse when 2nd Brigade was newly back from the field, yet the worst fights were when the Brits were in town and training on the MTA.)
Anywho, MP's and GP's respond. As the female MP enters she sees Subject use broken beer bottle to slash/stab Victim. Subject sees female MP and turns to run, heading out side door of Metropol. Female MP slaps leather, draws and fires, striking Subject in the back torso as he is exiting through the doorway.
Female MP is charged with Attempted Murder.
However, she had a really good defense JAG. He pointed out two important facts that created some doubt in the minds of the jurors.
1. The broken bottle was found within 2 feet of the doorway (on the inside of the building), indicating that the Subject may have still had the broken bottle in his hand when struck by the round fired by the female MP.
2. There were two people about to the enter the Metropol through the side door.
Therefore, it was possible that the Subject could have used the broken bottle to cause death or grievous bodily harm to one or both of the two people approaching the side door.
Once the trial was complete, she was transferred to Frankfurt where she was not allowed to be armed and basically was permanent CQ over at the Abrams building. IIRC, she was offered a chance to re-class to another MOS. Last I heard she ETS'd and wasn't offered the opportunity to re-enlist.
-
I dislike the idea that someone can legally shoot someone one second then it turns into first degree murder 3 seconds later. Sometimes that is appropriate, but it just doesn't seem like it ought to be that way. I think some people are too quick to judge someone on the wrong side of that transition.
I was thinking more about the MP case above. I am not sure that applies to the current case or not.
-
Take a close look at the frame by frame in the conservative treehouse link it shows both the Taser and the Taser cartridge as well as the taser wires and where they were going as well as a chain of events that does not feed popular narrative
-
Interesting read. Boy do things change once a video is found. The word of these LEOs should never be trusted.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/07/3644189/everything-police-said-walter-scotts-death-video-showed-really-happened/
-
By word are you referring to police reports? I was still waiting to see em
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
And it's interesting that they claim they didn't know they were being filmed. Have you seen the longest available video? Seen the witness accounts?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Every time I read this thread, I'm reminded of an incident from 9 years ago here. Two detectives arrest 2 young men for suspicion of murder. One is found to have a .45 in his pocket. Both are handcuffed and placed in cruisers. One of them gets his hands from his back to his front (still cuffed), gets out of the car, and commences to run. Cops shoot and kill fleeing handcuffed suspect.
One month later...
"Las Vegas Police Officers Actions Found Justifiable" -KLAS TV News, Las Vegas.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4909076/las-vegas-metro-police-shoot-and-kill-handcuffed-teen)
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4990822/las-vegas-police-officers-actions-found-justifiable (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4990822/las-vegas-police-officers-actions-found-justifiable)
There has never been a "bad shoot" by cops in Las Vegas.
I had a cousin that was justifiably murdered by a Las Vegas cop. Kind of tends to color my views on these things a little.
-
Tennessee v Garner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner pretty much sets the stage these days on the "fleeing felon" rule.
There was a case in Cupeper Va a bit over 3 years ago that is still being beaten to death over at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?99768-Culpeper-shooting . The defense was that the driver was headed down the street towards downtown where there were a number of pedestrians who would be endangered. It didn't work, although many observers (legal as well as lay) said it was well done.
Here we have a fleeing suspect (is failure to pay child support a felony?) that is alleged (for the nonce we will ignore any evidence to the contrary) to have had a TASER in his hand. As an admirerer of great theater I would have liked to hear the explanation of how that endangered the lives of anybody who might have been in the direction he was running. Sadly, I will apparently not have that opportunity.
stay safe.
-
As a side note, and NOT about this specific incident (merely related in terms of hardware) i personally believe that without mitigating circumstances if someone else is the aggressor, and is pointing a taser at me, and I have a firearm, I would consider the taser to be grave harm and a potentially lethal threat (less lethal just means not invariably so, and we know people have died from it, let alone the fact they could taser you, then walk up and kill you), and that would be sufficient for the potentiality part of the SD aspect...if within 10-15ft, then also opportunity.
What do you think? Does DEFINED less lethal aggressor mean ok lethal response?
What if they are 30ft away? Is it a 21ft + taser range? (If they are pointing and you aren't drawn)?
I wonder if there is case history on such an aspect?
-
There has never been a "bad shoot" by cops in Las Vegas.
I had a cousin that was justifiably murdered by a Las Vegas cop. Kind of tends to color my views on these things a little.
That is an unfortunate fact.
-
As a side note, and NOT about this specific incident (merely related in terms of hardware) i personally believe that without mitigating circumstances if someone else is the aggressor, and is pointing a taser at me, and I have a firearm, I would consider the taser to be grave harm and a potentially lethal threat (less lethal just means not invariably so, and we know people have died from it, let alone the fact they could taser you, then walk up and kill you), and that would be sufficient for the potentiality part of the SD aspect...if within 10-15ft, then also opportunity.
What do you think? Does DEFINED less lethal aggressor mean ok lethal response?
What if they are 30ft away? Is it a 21ft + taser range? (If they are pointing and you aren't drawn)?
I wonder if there is case history on such an aspect?
Jurisdiction specific legal advice is critical for these sorts of questions - thatd be the only sure way to get a legal perspective.
Not advice, but as a general principle based on common law rules, you should always be able to clearly articulate in your mind why your life is in danger, and why using lethal force is the only way to stop the danger. Focusing on any trigger circumstances or events (ie, in your house or out, gun visible or not) is a recipe for making a decision that may not have been necessary to save your life. And if using force isn't necessary to save your life, the risk that someone else will review your choices (like a jury) is absolutely not worth it.
-
My fear would be that once tased they gain access to any firearm I carried
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My fear would be that once tased they gain access to any firearm I carried
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Or could simply beat you to death.
-
True particularly if that someone had just fought his way back to his feet and disarmed you of that taser.
Its similar to the rabbit and the beagle
Rabbits running for its life beagles in it cause its his job
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Or could simply beat you to death.
A real fear, but heavily dependant on the facts of each instance. If there are circumstances that clearly mitigate the risk, you can get into real trouble.
Of course, if a video shows up on the Internet of you shooting someone while they're at a distance running away, you can expect a murder charge no matter what story you give.
-
Facts like fighting for control of a weapon?
Couple factors that are different for a cop. Its not typically an option to throw up their hands and quit. Its not really sop. Folks actually expect them to keep after the guys they are arresting
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
My fear would be that once tased they gain access to any firearm I carried
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Think through that rule for a second - if a suspect is running to a place you can't see, he might have weapons there, particularly a house. Does that mean any time a suspect runs a police shoot is good?
Scenarios for harm need to be reasonable and based on concrete facts, not fanciful or based on maybes. They also can't depend on choices you make later. Being at higher risk for a messy arrest because someone runs into an abandoned building isn't for example cause to shoot them before they get in the door.
The most disturbing element of support for the cop in this case is that supporters seem to view the gun as a compliance tool - keep resisting and it's the option that follows baton and tasers. That is completely wrongheaded and a dangerous way to think about policing and state power.
A police handgun serves the same purpose as a ccw, no more. It is not there to ensure that people obey directions or submit to even lawful commands.
-
Facts like fighting for control of a weapon?
Couple factors that are different for a cop. Its not typically an option to throw up their hands and quit. Its not really sop. Folks actually expect them to keep after the guys they are arresting
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
The handgun isn't a tool to help the cop carry out lawful instructions. And if you watch the video, there's no struggle or even remotely arguable appearance of struggle when the shots are fired.
-
It might well be close enough for a jury. A good defense guy can make that happen.
As to Scout's feMP I could see her being prosecuted if she let the guy go and he stabbed someone with that broken bottle. "Well why didn't you shoot him? Didn't you care that he cold have hurt someone?" So that was possibly a no-win situation for her.
-
My fear would be that once tased they gain access to any firearm I carried
Doesn't work if the "threat" is 10 yards away and increasing the distance as fast as his legs will carry him AWAY FROM you.
-
Hes got a real lawyer now. He might well opt for a bench trial. I might. I am not hip on how politicized the judiciary is there. I have found its tougher to get a decent appeal off a bench trial too. Other members if the lawyers guild are less inclined to risk hurting a fellow members feelings. Plus a bench trial tends to be more controlled less openings for reversible error. And i would have to be planning on appeal as a backup.
Heck i would have to consider a manslaughter plea deal with the right sentencing recommendation. This is gonna be a political circus so there may be no offer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
The handgun isn't a tool to help the cop carry out lawful instructions. And if you watch the video, there's no struggle or even remotely arguable appearance of struggle when the shots are fired.
I think you are splitting hairs. I don't think you can separate the 5 seconds of the actual shooting from everything else that occurred. Not and be truly objective.
-
As I don't have a dog in this fight, and can't recall- I'm fairly certain the officer's backup came from the direction the deceased was running, no?
How long after the shoot did the other officer show up? It was less than a minute I think
-
Assuming objectivity is a goal presumes facts not in evidence
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Tennessee v Garner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner pretty much sets the stage these days on the "fleeing felon" rule.
There was a case in Cupeper Va a bit over 3 years ago that is still being beaten to death over at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?99768-Culpeper-shooting . The defense was that the driver was headed down the street towards downtown where there were a number of pedestrians who would be endangered. It didn't work, although many observers (legal as well as lay) said it was well done.
Here we have a fleeing suspect (is failure to pay child support a felony?) that is alleged (for the nonce we will ignore any evidence to the contrary) to have had a TASER in his hand. As an admirerer of great theater I would have liked to hear the explanation of how that endangered the lives of anybody who might have been in the direction he was running. Sadly, I will apparently not have that opportunity.
stay safe.
Well put, but at this point we know there was a 1.45 minute fight with a police officer, before a taser was used (and that potentially on the officer). I don't know if that makes him a violent felon but it does make him a felon who had a 1.45 minute fight with a cop.
-
I think you are splitting hairs. I don't think you can separate the 5 seconds of the actual shooting from everything else that occurred. Not and be truly objective.
the difference between shooting someone who you are locked in struggle with, and shooting them in the back 10 yards away running, is not hair splitting.
If you can't reassess your actions fast enough to account for the difference, you should not use a gun for SD.
-
As a larger matter, automatically lining up to oppose the activists mostly just demonstrates that all parties to the issue are equally irrational and knee jerk.
Yes, obviously the activists will make a stink about this shooting. They appear to be right to do so from the video. There is no sense in finding reasons to make this like the ferguson shooting.
-
Appear to be? Thats not the definitive i have come to expect
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
As a larger matter, automatically lining up to oppose the activists mostly just demonstrates that all parties to the issue are equally irrational and knee jerk.
Yes, obviously the activists will make a stink about this shooting. They appear to be right to do so from the video. There is no sense in finding reasons to make this like the ferguson shooting.
There aren't many activists on this one. Maybe you? =D
-
Assuming objectivity is a goal presumes facts not in evidence
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
:laugh: :laugh:
-
There aren't many activists on this one. Maybe you? =D
There arent many? Are you seriously saying that in a thread about Geraldo?
-
Are you positing geraldo as a pro cop activist?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Are you positing geraldo as a pro cop activist?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
the activists I was referring to are those who organised around the Ferguson case.
-
Ahhh yes ferguson. The last narrative that did not play out the way some folks had planned. 0 for 2 with trayvon
The hat trick may loom
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Ahhh yes ferguson. The last narrative that did not play out the way some folks had planned. 0 for 2 with trayvon
The hat trick may loom
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
The comparisons are ill considered. This is a completely different shooting as it's entirely on video.
It's also important to note that there is a difference between a shooting that is never charged and one that goes to a jury. The trayvon folks were right that a charge would proceed - it did, and luckily for Zimmerman with an incompetent prosecution.
There's an actual murder charge laid now. There's basically zero chance it will be resolved any other way than with a finding of guilty/not guilty. There's not going to be an administrative determination of determination of law that saves the shooter.
-
Bit in the middle is missing. I know you want to believe it does not count. Good luck with that
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Bit in the middle is missing. I know you want to believe it does not count. Good luck with that
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Those "analyses" of the video are the right's version of the patriarchal/white conspiracy types.
There should just be an app that automatically posts "officer safety!" Over and over. It would be as much use to the defense as anything else in this case.
-
These are the same folks that dug out the audio of an a an actual witness debunking hands up
Their track record is better than yours
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
These are the same folks that dug out the audio of an a an actual witness debunking hands up
Their track record is better than yours
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Okay, let's try stepping away from the person and consider the logic here:
Given:
1. The Ferguson shooting audio didn't match a witness account
2. George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder
3. A conservative blog commented on both
4. I predicted Zimmerman would go on trial (possibly for 2nd degree, although I called that a stretch) and be convicted
Therefore: conservative blog's analysis of the SC video is right.
Please tell me where I have aired in that summary. I shouldn't have to point out that no method logic could possibly draw the conclusion from the premises there.
-
You erred in your pronouncements in both cases. Profoundly so. And the hat trick is in sight
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Well, supposing the fellow that got shot got and used the taser on Officer Shootemup, that makes it a mite hairier and less clear cut than I thought in the previous thread.
Coming as a result of a Gerry Rivers commentary stings a bit.
-
You erred in your pronouncements in both cases. Profoundly so. And the hat trick is in sight
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Uh, sorry, what was my pronouncement on brown?
-
I stand corrected you were on sabbatical for brown
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I stand corrected you were on sabbatical for brown
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was far from on sabbatical but I was still practicing law.
-
Well, supposing the fellow that got shot got and used the taser on Officer Shootemup, that makes it a mite hairier and less clear cut than I thought in the previous thread.
Coming as a result of a Gerry Rivers commentary stings a bit.
I don't know how it changes anything. The victim was still running away and posed no threat to the officer or to anyone else in the vicinity when he was shot -- in the back.
-
I don't know how it changes anything. The victim was still running away and posed no threat to the officer or to anyone else in the vicinity when he was shot -- in the back.
And that is the question. How do the events leading up to that affect the consequences of what happened after? This may turn quite a bit on the lawyer arguments and presentation.
I think he will likely get found guilty of something unless there is even more evidence we haven't seen. The link CS&D posted makes me think it won't be first degree murder.
-
I am waiting for a reduced plea. I think this kinda case generates a lot of fear
-
The comparisons are ill considered. This is a completely different shooting as it's entirely on video.
Yeah, except it's NOT entirely on video. The altercation took place over 2 minutes and some 200 or 300 yards, and very little of it is actually caught on video.
I don't know how it changes anything. The victim was still running away and posed no threat to the officer or to anyone else in the vicinity when he was shot -- in the back.
Based on the frame clock on the video, the two go from struggling to breaking contact, Scott turning and sprinting while Slager draws, aims, and starts firing, all in under 2 seconds. 2 Seconds ain't a lot of time to react. From break to the final shot fired is about 4 seconds, which still ain't a lot of time.
Do you honestly think you could react better, under stress, immediately after a fight, under those time constraints? I'd like to think that I would, but I'm honest enough to admit I can't be sure.
Hell, I struggle to reliably draw, aim and fire in 1 second under relaxed and controlled circumstances. Add stress, fear, fighting, adrenalin, decision making, having just sprinted 200 yards, possibly having just been tasered by my own taser... No way I could say I'd perform any better.
Also, let's be clear about what the video shows and doesn't show. For instance, it does not show who else might have been in the vicinity, nor who else might have been at risk.
-
He found it in Al Capone's vault.
I remember that TV special.
-
None of that matters. Police should be trained on "Shoot, Don't Shoot" (The old Hogan's Alley trainer). It's fundamental police training. Both as part of the Academy and periodic refresher.
It would be the same as if you shot the guy in your front yard that just tried to break-in to your home and he was running away.
No longer a threat. The possibility that he might latter hurt someone is not a factor. Can he hurt someone now? That is the question.
(And with another officer coming around to head him off at the pass, that makes that a hard one to convince a jury.)
-
He's toast. And he should be. This is the way it should be. No more free passes because you are a cop. You screw up, you get charged and a jury will decide. This will happen more often, as it should.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-73-charged-degree-manslaughter-stun/story?id=30277587
-
He's toast. And he should be. This is the way it should be. No more free passes because you are a cop. You screw up, you get charged and a jury will decide. It's will happen more often, as it should.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-73-charged-degree-manslaughter-stun/story?id=30277587
Has similarities to the Oscar Grant shooting in California (cop mistook his sidearm for a Taser): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Sentencing
It might be a good idea to design Tasers, stun guns, and similar devices with a look and feel distinctly different from a firearm.
-
He's toast. And he should be. This is the way it should be. No more free passes because you are a cop. You screw up, you get charged and a jury will decide. This will happen more often, as it should.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-73-charged-degree-manslaughter-stun/story?id=30277587
I approve of LEOs getting the same treatment as non-LEO citizens.
-
Has similarities to the Oscar Grant shooting in California (cop mistook his sidearm for a Taser): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Sentencing
It might be a good idea to design Tasers, stun guns, and similar devices with a look and feel distinctly different from a firearm.
As far as looks, I thought they already were. In terms of feel, what else is there?
-
As far as looks, I thought they already were. In terms of feel, what else is there?
Yeah, I thought that normal people get opportunities to plea down.
If the case becomes a media circus, no one wins.
-
As far as looks, I thought they already were. In terms of feel, what else is there?
Not sure I understand your question.
While it's not my area of expertise, I notice that devices like the X26 and M26 Tasers are very pistol-like in shape and controls. If they were shaped like, say, this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entertainmentearth.com%2Fimages%2FAUTOIMAGES%2FRU8767lg.jpg&hash=f17248c6841bfd705590a75aa98172009fec67e5)
=)
mistaking a firearm for a Taser would be less likely IMO.
Of course, proper training, practice, and mindset are more important.
-
Well put, but at this point we know there was a 1.45 minute fight with a police officer, before a taser was used (and that potentially on the officer). I don't know if that makes him a violent felon but it does make him a felon who had a 1.45 minute fight with a cop.
Please provide a link to the statute authorizing lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away from you, if you had just been in a fight with them.
-
Not sure I understand your question.
While it's not my area of expertise, I notice that devices like the X26 and M26 Tasers are very pistol-like in shape and controls. If they were shaped like, say, this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entertainmentearth.com%2Fimages%2FAUTOIMAGES%2FRU8767lg.jpg&hash=f17248c6841bfd705590a75aa98172009fec67e5)
=)
mistaking a firearm for a Taser would be less likely IMO.
Of course, proper training, practice, and mindset are more important.
My guess would be that tasers are shaped like pistols for the same reasons that pistols are shaped like pistols, even down to having the same grip angle as the department's duty pistol. How much could we deviate from that, and still have a weapon that can be aimed at a target, while under duress?
-
Couple points i never considered
http://www.vdare.com/letters/a-law-enforcement-veteran-speaks-in-defense-of-michael-slager
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
And grahm vs connor might come into play
Graham pressed charges for excessive force, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. When the case eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the fundamental aspects of the decision centered around the word "reasonable" and determined that what is reasonable in the use of force by an officer has to be viewed from the perspective of what was reasonable in the moment of force and not in 20/20 hindsight.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
And hers an analysis from a guy who wants slager to go to jail. And why its not gonna happen
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/10/michael-slager-is-not-going-to-prison-for-killing-walter-scott-here-s-why.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I think that the arguments presented in the first article (assuming they are correct) are ridiculous. "Man slaughter at most..." ;/
Technicalities don't outweigh Natural Rights, mkay?
-
He's toast. And he should be. This is the way it should be. No more free passes because you are a cop. You screw up, you get charged and a jury will decide. This will happen more often, as it should.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-73-charged-degree-manslaughter-stun/story?id=30277587
I've been watching that one pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Also kind of interesting to see that the Tulsa county Sherriff says he didn't do anything wrong.
-
Please provide a link to the statute authorizing lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away from you, if you had just been in a fight with them.
Well, since you say it in that manner: If he was running away with the officers pistol and he shot him with a backup gun, that would be one option. There are probably others that also don't fit this case.
-
Well, since you say it in that manner: If he was running away with the officers pistol and he shot him with a backup gun, that would be one option. There are probably others that also don't fit this case.
If he were running away with the officer's pistol, then that would make him ARMED.. right?
-
Hypothetical:
Say an officer attempts to lawfully use his Taser during an arrest, and a suspect takes it, and uses it against him. Say the officer still has barbs in his flesh, and the suspect runs a short distance. While running, the suspect is obviously facing away from him. Let's say the officer believes, or has reason to believe, that the suspect still has the Taser, and the ability to use it against him by simply energizing the wires again. (I don't know whether Tasers work that way. It is my current understanding that they do.) As the suspect, if he has the Taser, does not need to turn around to do this, would the officer be justified in shooting the suspect in the back? He has reason to believe that the suspect may tase him, and then cause him further injury or death.
-
If he had the taser he would be too right?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
(I don't know whether Tasers work that way. It is my current understanding that they do.)
It do. Or at least the LEO-versions do. The plebe version just energizes when fired and stays that way for some quantity of seconds (enough to hoof it out of dodge while the bad guy rides the wires being the idea), and then is done.
-
Please provide a link to the statute authorizing lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away from you, if you had just been in a fight with them.
What I was driving at is that the defense will use that fight, combined with the Tasering of the officer (if that happened) to say that Slager thought Scott was an immediate threat to the public at large--like in Scouts case with the female MP.
-
But was he an immediate threat? How would you articulate that? What possible scenarios could develop in which he would immediately cause sufficient harm that merited his immediate death on the spot? In other words, who would have died right then and there if Scott did not die first? It was not a defensive shoot, it was a hunting shoot, predatory, offensive, capture by bullet, call it what you will. "I'm going to "get" that man running over there" is what the pictures say.
-
Couple points i never considered
http://www.vdare.com/letters/a-law-enforcement-veteran-speaks-in-defense-of-michael-slager
See? No need to defend the officer, he has a whole country full of defenders -- all of whom wear blue uniforms.
Regarding Slager’s action in picking up the Taser, there’s not anything particularly wrong with it. Following a shooting incident an officer may not be completely focused on exactly what steps should be taken to secure what has now become a scene to be processed. Remember, he was picking up his own Taser—you don’t normally think in terms of your own equipment being evidence.
Another very important point is this (and I have myself picked up weapons at an open and fluid scene which is as yet unsecured): the Taser is a weapon and it was lying on the ground uncontrolled. Picking up the Taser prevents it from being used on the officer by another person—or simply being taken from the scene and disappearing.
Just ... WOW! With friends like this, Officer Slager doesn't need enemies. Here's a former cop trying to explain why it's not only acceptable but even desirable for a police officer to tamper with evidence. It takes a lot to leave me stunned, but this did it.
-
The fact is, anyone who doesn't immediately comply with an order may someday become a threat to officer safety. After all, if SOP is to shoot you for not submitting to arrest, then of course word is going to get out and people will start behaving like every encounter is a lethal threat.
Seriously folks - the shooter might as well have been wearing a sport coat and using dogs.
-
Are dogs considered lethal, or less-lethal?
-
Hypothetical:
Say an officer attempts to lawfully use his Taser during an arrest, and a suspect takes it, and uses it against him. Say the officer still has barbs in his flesh, and the suspect runs a short distance. While running, the suspect is obviously facing away from him. Let's say the officer believes, or has reason to believe, that the suspect still has the Taser, and the ability to use it against him by simply energizing the wires again. (I don't know whether Tasers work that way. It is my current understanding that they do.) As the suspect, if he has the Taser, does not need to turn around to do this, would the officer be justified in shooting the suspect in the back? He has reason to believe that the suspect may tase him, and then cause him further injury or death.
Yes, you can re-engage the jolt in a police taser -- it's good for up to 150 ten-second jolts. And the wires are only about 35 feet long (or less -- 35 feet is the maximum). The victim was farther away from the officer than 35 feet when the first shot was fired.
https://www.taser.com/images/support/downloads/downloads/mk-inst-x26c-001_rev_a_x26c_manual.pdf
According to C&SD's link to an article written by an anonymous, purported retired cop, Scott was "armed" because he had a taser. But the barbs had been deployed. If there was another cartridge, it would have been in a pouch on the officer's duty belt -- Scott wouldn't have had one, and you can't buy them at Wal-Mart.
-
Are dogs considered lethal, or less-lethal?
Depends on when they were last fed.
-
What I was driving at is that the defense will use that fight, combined with the Tasering of the officer (if that happened) to say that Slager thought Scott was an immediate threat to the public at large--like in Scouts case with the female MP.
I'm sure the defense will say many laughable things.
-
mistaking a firearm for a Taser would be less likely IMO.
Of course, proper training, practice, and mindset are more important.
I LOL'd because that's what I was getting ready to post. ;)
And yes, you do run into the problem that if you change the shape that much, learning how to aim the thing becomes problematic.
What I was driving at is that the defense will use that fight, combined with the Tasering of the officer (if that happened) to say that Slager thought Scott was an immediate threat to the public at large--like in Scouts case with the female MP.
Problem is that the barbs were in/on Scott, not Slager. While the taser can apparently also be used as a contact weapon with the barbs deployed, I can't help but think the most likely outcome of pulling the trigger in that case would have been Scott zapping himself, not Officer Slager.
Even the discredited story says that Slager wasn't shocked, merely that Mr. Scott attempted to do so. Instead it looks mostly like when the taser failed to work, Mr. Scott decided to run again(and fairly slowly at that, he wasn't any gazelle), and Slager chucked it behind himself and pulled his service pistol.
-
Problem is that the barbs were in/on Scott, not Slager. While the taser can apparently also be used as a contact weapon with the barbs deployed, I can't help but think the most likely outcome of pulling the trigger in that case would have been Scott zapping himself, not Officer Slager.
You can look at the screenshots here and tell me what you think. Whether you buy what CTH is selling or not, the screenshots do not seem to lie.
Does that make it a good shoot? I don't know. There is still information we need to have.