Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

[evillawyer]

As opposed to NOT running from the police?

Irrelevant, since we're only discussing instances in which they do run or resist.

 

[hog88]

Yes, but the cops should be facing murder charges. If cops unlawfully detain you... they should be facing criminal charges for false imprisonment.

No argument from me on that. Maybe members of the BAR should exert some influence on the 192 lawyers currently holding federal office and get some of that passed.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Where are you getting your "facts" on this one?

911 call, eyewitness reports, my own eyes from the video, knowledge of police procedure, and criminal law...there will be more that will validate my opinion of it

 

[rjd970]

Really, if something like this is effective, a lot of this stuff could be avoided.

I personally doubt it. How many non-lethal options do cops currently have? I don't think adding another will make that much more of a difference. Cops will shoot when they want/need no matter what.

 

[Rickyvol77]

At the end of the day he was shot 7 times in the back. Obviously something leading up to the shooting or the shooting itself could have been handled differently by both the suspect and the cops.



Same goes for the suspect and whatever reason you want to place blame on him, no?

So you are saying that suspect is not to blame for his actions? The officer's actions were in reaction to the suspect's actions.

 

[hog88]

If a few of these trigger happy cowardly f#cks go to jail then these incidents will decline.

If only there was an organization that all practicing lawyers belonged to that had some influence over lawyers.

 

[Rickyvol77]

My original post to Ricky was asking why he felt the orders were lawful.



The facts are not yet known, but Ricky in true cop fashion says the shoot was good.

Here are the facts i know:

Did the officers have legal reason to be there? yes
Was the suspect involved in criminal activity? yes
Were the officers attempting to detain/arrest the suspect? yes
Did the officers give several commands to stop? yes
Did the suspect commit actions that resisted arrest and place officers in fear of harm to themselves/others? pretty clear that this is yes

All of that = good shoot according to the law

 

[rjd970]

So you are saying that suspect is not to blame for his actions? The officer's actions were in reaction to the suspect's actions.

I'm saying both sides are to blame, and your 20/20 hindsight comment cuts both ways. The difference is the consequences of the mistake for each side. One side is possibly paralyzed, the other gets top cover from a union.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Ricky has never met a shooting he didn't like. Maybe, just maybe, he thought the North Charleston police shooting was bad (where the unarmed guy was clearly running away from the cop)

I said Walter scott case was a terrible shoot and glad that the officers was fired/jailed as it was purposefully covering up his actions as well.

I think the Oscar Grant shooting was a bad shoot, but one of negligence NOT willful actions to attempt to shoot the suspect.

There are multiple instances that i think an officer willfully or negligently have had a "bad shoot", however this is clearly not one of them

 

[volbeast33]

Irrelevant, since we're only discussing instances in which they do run or resist.

It would be great if they did come up with something non-lethal to incapacitate someone and cut down on these type of issues

 

[Rickyvol77]

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around being shot 7 times in the back as justified without a single shot fired at the officers. In this thread I'm seeing things like hinsight is 20/20, he deserved it because he was convicted of sexual assault previously, the rest of us shouldn't comment because we don't really understand the law, etc..

I was referring to Clearwater who claims to be an attorney but doesn't understand simple legal cases dealing with this issue.

 

[Rickyvol77]

People get too caught up on shot 7 times thing when cops are taught to shoot multiple times like that when they decide to fire their weapon.

you shoot until you end the threat...

 

[hog88]

Here are the facts i know:

Did the officers have legal reason to be there? yes
Was the suspect involved in criminal activity? yes
Were the officers attempting to detain/arrest the suspect? yes
Did the officers give several commands to stop? yes
Did the suspect commit actions that resisted arrest and place officers in fear of harm to themselves/others? pretty clear that this is yes

All of that = good shoot according to the law

Then the law needs to be changed.

If it's a case of had they let him go and he ended up hurting someone else the dept or officers could be sued, that needs to change. If it's a case of the dept or officers being sued for him getting hurt had they dog piled his azz, that needs to be changed. We can't on one hand hold officers liable for letting someone go and then on the other hold them accountable when someone gets hurt trying to escape.

 

[volbeast33]

I'm saying both sides are to blame, and your 20/20 hindsight comment cuts both ways. The difference is the consequences of the mistake for each side. One side is possibly paralyzed, the other gets top cover from a union.

They have to have some sort of cover to be able to do their job.... you are talking life and death decisions made in a split second while we are chilling discussing the situation.

 

[Rickyvol77]

So when the cops come and demand your guns and you refuse to comply and they shoot you that's cool, right?

They will never do that, because we are law-abiding and not criminals.

 

[volbeast33]

you shoot until you end the threat...

I know..... it’s like no one understands that

 

[Rickyvol77]

No one denies that the victim acted stupidly. Many girls do stupid things that lead to them getting raped. Does the rape get excused because she wore a miniskirt and was drunk?

Getting raped is not the same as committing multiple crimes..try harder

 

[Rickyvol77]

Yes, but the cops should be facing murder charges. If cops unlawfully detain you... they should be facing criminal charges for false imprisonment.

so again, you believe the police had no right to detain him? is that your legal opinion?

 

[Rickyvol77]

In all honesty, cops need to develop something that can be used to quickly bind/immobilize legs. This shooting and the Atlanta shooting would not have happened if legs could have been immobilized.

you can't because lawyers will sue for head injuries/brain bleeds when the suspect falls and hits their head on the concrete

 

[volbeast33]

Then the law needs to be changed.

If it's a case of had they let him go and he ended up hurting someone else the dept or officers could be sued, that needs to change. If it's a case of the dept or officers being sued for him getting hurt had they dog piled his azz, that needs to be changed. We can't on one hand hold officers liable for letting someone go and then on the other hold them accountable when someone gets hurt trying to escape.

Yep..... this is true

 

[Rickyvol77]

Totally agree. If you're worried about him going for a gun, why do you let him get to that point? Somebody put your gun down and taze him or grab him or something. This is not good police work. People are crazy. Cops are supposed to be able to deal with that fact without making terrible mistakes that result in riots.

That's like saying Michael Brown was a "terrible mistake" because it resulted in riots, when in reality the officers were legal and justified in their actions. These morons will riot and destroy stuff because that's what they do, even if every arrest was 100% on the up and up

 

[volbeast33]

you can't because lawyers will sue for head injuries/brain bleeds when the suspect falls and hits their head on the concrete

Yep no hitting..... no choke hold..... no knees in upper back/neck..... no knees in mid/lower back..... now, why didn’t you just detain him?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Yeah. I have seen mentioned a couple times here that there is other video showing him on the ground. No idea what happened from that moment to when he was walking away.

If you can get a hand on him they should be able to tackle the guy from behind. Imo it's hard to argue they were in immediate danger with his back to them where it would have been unwise to tackle him.

Now once he gets the door open and reaches inside, it's back to stupid games. But imo the cops had a chance to safely descelate the situation before that moment. I dont see it as overboard to think the cops have a duty to descelate a situation with non lethal measures Again I cant imagine their training says:allow the perp to get a (second?) Weapon before using force.

I would think their training would be the opposite. Make sure he doesnt get a weapon.

Imo this isn't a case where all the blame sits on the guy who got shot.

and if they saw or thought he had a knife in his hand? then what

 

[Rickyvol77]

Define "getting life threatened". Because walking to your car, lying on the ground saying you can't breathe, and sleeping in your own bed ain't it.

he wasn't "just walking to his car"
Floyd wasn't shot, he died of drug overdose
and the police officers lives WERE threatened while Taylor stood behind her boyfriend as he fired shots at them, hitting one

 

[Rickyvol77]

I'm saying both sides are to blame, and your 20/20 hindsight comment cuts both ways. The difference is the consequences of the mistake for each side. One side is possibly paralyzed, the other gets top cover from a union.

Well the criminal is the one to blame, i feel no sorrow for him.

A felon sex offender with tons of criminal history involved in a domestic fight, then resisted arrest. His actions...his consequences.