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

#578
#578
lawgator1 said:
I love the "they could have tackled him" argument. Its right up there with tasing. Or "shoot him in the leg."

The tactical decisions can be criticized forever. In hindsight knowing what happened, you can always theorize some alternative outcome had some other course of action been taken.

That has nothing to do with the constitutionality of use of force. That is entirely dependent in this case on whether they reasonably perceived a threat from him when they fired.

And, to boot, when you theorize about what the police could have done differently, don't forget to theorize about what he could have done differently. He could have not walked away and instead cooperated. He could have not reached into the door of the car.

And then, since we are dealing with alternative universes, let's say they tackle him. And then there is a claim they injured him that way. There is uproar over that. Shades of George Floyd on the ground.

In the case of all of this, you have to think in terms of what was known, at the moment of decision. Not what is known later. From another vantage point. And with no information from the video about what happened prior to then.
Click to expand...
Again what does their training say? To me it seems like a huge breach of everything to allow someone to go for a weapon in that situation.

We are already talking about the cops shooting the guy, tackling him and causing a concussion is a whole lot lower of an issue. And believe me I am not belittling what a concussion can do to a person.

To me it seems jacked up that the cops can get away with messing up for however much of the situation, but as soon as the civilian messes up lethal force is applicable and good bye rights of the citizen.

Make them not cops. Think of it as just a shooting between civilians and it's clear who is in the wrong. Not sure why one side being cops 100% clears them. That's way too much jackboot appeasement for me to like it.

Again not sure why cops are defended if they allowed the situation to get to the worse possible outcome. If the public is supposed to trust them they have to be the professionals in the matter. This did not strike me as professional behavior. Tackling/handcuffing/knee in the back would have been.
 
#582
#582
ClearwaterVol said:
How can you be sure race didn't play a role without the facts?
Click to expand...
Uggggghhhh.

How can you be sure race was part of it without the facts.

I am white, I am not reaching back into my car around cops with drawn guns. That is dumb dumb dumb. Of maybe I am weird and dont want to be shot, but I guess that's my white privledge speaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#583
#583
PointGuard said:
Two that I know of. The other guy was only shot six times? Can you tell me how many unarmed white guys have been shot in the back by cops?
Click to expand...
You're the one making the argument they are shot more than white people. The onus is on you to provide the data to support the assertion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#584
#584
ClearwaterVol said:
You saw nothing wrong with the Atlanta shoot. Or any evidence of racism.
Click to expand...
Again, I am white, I fight off the cops, grab one of their weapons and point it at them even as I am running away and I am probably getting shot. Or at least am not facing odds I like.

Not a racial issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#585
#585
LouderVol said:
Again what does their training say? To me it seems like a huge breach of everything to allow someone to go for a weapon in that situation.

We are already talking about the cops shooting the guy, tackling him and causing a concussion is a whole lot lower of an issue. And believe me I am not belittling what a concussion can do to a person.

To me it seems jacked up that the cops can get away with messing up for however much of the situation, but as soon as the civilian messes up lethal force is applicable and good bye rights of the citizen.

Make them not cops. Think of it as just a shooting between civilians and it's clear who is in the wrong. Not sure why one side being cops 100% clears them. That's way too much jackboot appeasement for me to like it.

Again not sure why cops are defended if they allowed the situation to get to the worse possible outcome. If the public is supposed to trust them they have to be the professionals in the matter. This did not strike me as professional behavior. Tackling/handcuffing/knee in the back would have been.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Regular citizens don’t get to enforce warrants..... every single profession has guidelines that a regular citizen are not able to perform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#587
#587
hog88 said:
I just saw the video from the passenger side of the car where he fights off the officers and gets up. What options were left to the police at that point assuming they had already used what non lethal weapons they had? If they would have let him go would they/the dept be liable should he have hurt his kids or someone else?
Click to expand...
If at first you dont succeed just go ahead and shoot him in the back?

I dont see losing a 3 vs 1 fight as a right to go lethal.

This is the part that doesnt make sense. It doesnt make sense to me that between when he was on the ground and before he got to his car door (a couple seconds) the cops have no responsibility what so ever to do anything. And they can just wait until he becomes an immediate threat.
 
#588
#588
volbeast33 said:
Here’s what I feel needs to change:

Look at laws that need to be changed such as no knock warrants for example

Go over police protocol and make it uniformed across the nation.... every technique used and training specified

Public address messages on tv showing how to interact with cops.....

Laws changed that have gotten black fathers out the homes and minorities relying on government welfare

The more integrated we could be the better we would end up being if at all possible.... cops and minorities are going to continue to have issues as long as Some of these minority communities stay so violent.

Quit allowing the police to police themselves.....

Change laws that hurt non-violent offenders for life.

Have sentencing be more regulated and not a judges call.... some guy should not be given a lesser sentence due to color of their skin or wealth
Click to expand...


I appreciate your reply. I’m just getting back to it. What you’ve outlined is a good start

I would start the list with mandated mental exams. I would mandate that for all politicians too so there is that. Back to cops. I think the nature of the job attracts some who enjoy applying at least a tad more force to certain situations. I think that alone would improve matters a lot. I liked all your other points as well
 
#589
#589
LouderVol said:
Again what does their training say? To me it seems like a huge breach of everything to allow someone to go for a weapon in that situation.

We are already talking about the cops shooting the guy, tackling him and causing a concussion is a whole lot lower of an issue. And believe me I am not belittling what a concussion can do to a person.

To me it seems jacked up that the cops can get away with messing up for however much of the situation, but as soon as the civilian messes up lethal force is applicable and good bye rights of the citizen.

Make them not cops. Think of it as just a shooting between civilians and it's clear who is in the wrong. Not sure why one side being cops 100% clears them. That's way too much jackboot appeasement for me to like it.

Again not sure why cops are defended if they allowed the situation to get to the worse possible outcome. If the public is supposed to trust them they have to be the professionals in the matter. This did not strike me as professional behavior. Tackling/handcuffing/knee in the back would have been.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't clear them just because they are police, and if facts came out different or opposed to my understanding of the facts presented, i would take them into account. However, you are saying that you expect police to handle every situation perfectly every time, no matter what the actions of criminals, family members, other's screaming and fighting, people driving in traffic, where your partners are, and the nature of the very call the same way every time without any issues, and that's not realistic or attainable.

Could you come back after and say, In my opinion the officers shouldve all arrived at the scene together, got the male and two females and immediately threw them to the ground with force and handcuffed them. That probably was the BEST SCENARIO with the 20/20 hindsight.

However more plays in that thinking.... Did the officers arrive together at same time? Did they JUST get there and were separating all parties and figuring out the situation when he got up and went to the car? What did he say to them? What did the females say? Did they say he's got a warrant? Were the officers trying to keep an eye on the crowd gathering too to assure noone was a danger there?

The 2nd video seems to show me that the altercation between the felon and the officers was very quick and he went to the car. Should they have jumped on him immediately and handcuffed him, no matter how bloody or injured he gets? Probably, but are these same officers also hesitant to do that because of the "perception" of the crowd, and trying to de-escalate the situation.

Even then, I see NO evidence that the officers did anything "wrong", against training or illegal or excessive. It simply isn't there with the evidence presented currently. That's not because "they are cops" it's simply understanding police procedures and criminal law.

If something comes out that proves otherwise, i will be the first one to say "yep bad shoot definitely"
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and allvol123
#594
#594
volbeast33 said:
What are you talking about? Regular citizens don’t get to enforce warrants..... every single profession has guidelines that a regular citizen are not able to perform.
Click to expand...
They weren't there serving a warrant. And again I dont think a warrant comes with a dead or alive tag with it.

They arent executioners. I always default on the side of the individual, so it just seems wrong that cops can sit around and do nothing before shooting someone and be justified in their actions.

I am not saying its murder, or even attempted murder. But I struggle seeing how this is going to make it to the training videos as a job well done.

My profession keeps a pretty sharp eye on its members. I dont get to let things get to the worst point before my professional obligation kicks in. I could lose my career or at least my license long before it gets to worse possible scenario. Cops shouldnt have a lower bar than that imo.
 
#596
#596
37L1 said:
Do tell. I'm honestly interested. Good for you for trying. Any success?
Click to expand...
sorry, long post:

I don’t like to talk about specifics in cases of mine. Legally/ethically it’s probably fine but it’s just a privacy thing. There have been many motions, numerous appeals (some mine, some contracted) and I’ve done contract work on a few lawsuits. There have been many abject failures. So far, no successes that made a difference outside the life of a singular client.

It’s just not as easy as you’re suggesting. There are no slam dunks.

Qualified immunity is a barrier to recovery. It is judge-made law that has survived hundreds of challenges with something like a dozen cases being rejected by SCOTUS, this term.

Assuming you get past qualified immunity, 42 USC 1983 also prohibits recovery in most cases unless the defendant was acquitted of all charges. TN law is set up to protect officers in that any resistance to arrest is unlawful, even if the arrest/detention was unlawful at the onset. Couple this with the existence of a professional symbiosis between prosecutors and police and you have another substantial barrier to remedial lawsuits. This also makes being the face of lawsuits against police “bad for business” as a criminal defense attorney. I don’t blame anybody who doesn’t want to get involved in civil suits against police. I’ve never put my name on one and probably won’t. It’s a net loss, financially and it rarely, if ever, accomplished the kind of meta change you’re talking about.

Assuming you get even a close case, the municipality will offer to settle. Think about who is involved in these cases. It’s almost never the family with a 200k yearly income, a healthy 401k, etc. Clients almost always take the money.

And it would be a bad attorney who advised them strongly against taking the money. Look at this thread. At least half of the people feel police shootings are justified and the municipality can always drudge up some “expert” who will tell the jury what many of them already believe.

Same principle applies to criminal defendants. Two of the most impactful victories of my career have been in cases where the defendants still went to prison. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had a good issue with good facts that couldn’t go forward because the state came with a low-ball offer and I’m neither allowed nor inclined to second guess their judgement.

In terms of being tricked into giving up your rights, I have appealed on this very issue and, ironically, Miranda was one of the areas of law where the concept originated. There are lines that cannot be crossed, but beyond that egregious misconduct, courts don’t care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and MemphisVol77
#598
#598
PointGuard said:
I appreciate your reply. I’m just getting back to it. What you’ve outlined is a good start

I would start the list with mandated mental exams. I would mandate that for all politicians too so there is that. Back to cops. I think the nature of the job attracts some who enjoy applying at least a tad more force to certain situations. I think that alone would improve matters a lot. I liked all your other points as well
Click to expand...
most agencies already have psych exams
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top