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

#601
#601
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is your profession? And this isn't "the worst" at all, i've been on shifts where similar calls happen 10-12 times in 12 hours
 
#606
#606
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the post.

Never said it was easy. That's why attorneys get paid, I guess.

Lots of times municipalities "settle" even if they believe that the plaintiff had no legitimate case but it was more "cost effective" to pay out than to incur the costs to litigate, so that cuts both ways, don't you think?

Why is it that "courts don't care"? Perhaps it might be a problem with law as it is written? Or is it something else, in your opinion, of course.

Too bad that it is ultimately $$$ that decides these, and other, things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and Rickyvol77
#607
#607
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good post, and i highlighted the important parts IMO. I'll be the first to say that ANYTIME true police misconduct happens, i'm against it, but the number of "innocent" people sent to prison over police misconduct is few and far between. But you even yourself are stating that the issues are the defendant STILL COMMITTED CRIMES, and wants money no matter what, no matter how smart or dumb they are, that the public also is against the criminal more than the police for obvious reasons, and that COURTS DO CARE when ACTUAL misconduct occurs, but doesn't care when you try to get criminals off on minor technicalities.
 
#608
#608
volbeast33 said:
Check out some cop training videos.... that guy created a very dangerous situation.
Click to expand...
Those training videos dont cover what to do BEFORE shooting someone? Give it one try and if that doesnt do nothing until lethal force is justified?
 
#611
#611
LouderVol said:
Those training videos dont cover what to do BEFORE shooting someone? Give it one try and if that doesnt do nothing until lethal force is justified?
Click to expand...
I suggest you attend a Citizen's Police Academy and go through training scenarios, it would open up your eyes IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: oz615
#612
#612
LouderVol said:
Those training videos dont cover what to do BEFORE shooting someone? Give it one try and if that doesnt do nothing until lethal force is justified?
Click to expand...
I don't know any facts in this other than what I saw on the video. The man that got shot wasn't making a move like he was getting into the car to drive as he was reaching into it for something. If I'm a cop and have a second to decide what to do with someone that is non-compliant and he's reaching into a car seat I'm pulling the trigger. This guy was a thug with a long history of being arrested, I'm not going to assume he has good intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmhawk, ButchPlz, allvol123 and 1 other person
#613
#613
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I needed to clarify my question. I'm asking about what options such as letting him go, billy club to the head/knees did the cops have and what potential liabilities/exposure would that bring upon them and the department.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#614
#614
Rickyvol77 said:
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"
Click to expand...
Not I am not saying the best case scenario. I am saying if they got him on the ground once it's reasonable to think they could again.

Once the cops show up it's never a true best case scenario. It's making the best of a bad situation. And imo that applies to the cops just as much as the civilians. Maybe a little more as the professional.

Imo the cops didnt even try to make the best of this situation. That's what bothers me. If he had been tackled again broke away and got through wrestling the cops to open the door and reach inside you wouldnt hear any complaints from me.

But in this case I dont see that level of effort. I dont see a professional level of "care". That's what bothers me.

I am on record saying as soon as he reached inside it's on him. But that is just the last act in this, it's not the full story. And to me you cant justify the cops previous actions by what happened afterwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#615
#615
LouderVol said:
Not I am not saying the best case scenario. I am saying if they got him on the ground once it's reasonable to think they could again.

Once the cops show up it's never a true best case scenario. It's making the best of a bad situation. And imo that applies to the cops just as much as the civilians. Maybe a little more as the professional.

Imo the cops didnt even try to make the best of this situation. That's what bothers me. If he had been tackled again broke away and got through wrestling the cops to open the door and reach inside you wouldnt hear any complaints from me.

But in this case I dont see that level of effort. I dont see a professional level of "care". That's what bothers me.

I am on record saying as soon as he reached inside it's on him. But that is just the last act in this, it's not the full story. And to me you cant justify the cops previous actions by what happened afterwards.
Click to expand...
I do see your point on that...and you are right, once the police have to respond to an incident like this, it's never great....I wish we had a full video of entire incident, because i'd like to know second wise how long police were on scene, tried to detain him and then the shooting.
 
#618
#618
37L1 said:
Thanks for the post.

Never said it was easy. That's why attorneys get paid, I guess.

Lots of times municipalities "settle" even if they believe that the plaintiff had no legitimate case but it was more "cost effective" to pay out than to incur the costs to litigate, so that cuts both ways, don't you think?

Why is it that "courts don't care"? Perhaps it might be a problem with law as it is written? Or is it something else, in your opinion, of course.

Too bad that it is ultimately $$$ that decides these, and other, things.
Click to expand...
Well, you did say it was a slam dunk and inferred that lack of effort was the reason it hasn’t been fixed. Many more capable attorneys than myself have been trying to get these laws changed without success. But I understand what you’re saying, now.

The settlement thing is not a gripe. I’m not saying it’s unfair. It’s just a barrier to progress. Trial court decisions etc. don’t make lasting changes. Trial courts can (and some do) decide the same facts differently two day in a row.

Appellate Courts don’t care for a number of reasons. Some of it is indeed how laws are written. In TN, the path to political office has never been to “go soft on crime.” Some of it is that state judges are subject to retention and, Penny White, for example, got campaigned against and voted off the Supreme Court for being too deferential to defendant’s rights. Some of it is that there are competing policy arguments: that litigation would bankrupt municipalities or that it will cause cops to get slaughtered in droves while they hesitate deciding whether or not shooting this guy will get them sued. (Neither seems particularly compelling to me, in light of recent events). There are other reasons, I’m sure, but those come to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#620
#620
Rickyvol77 said:
What is your profession? And this isn't "the worst" at all, i've been on shifts where similar calls happen 10-12 times in 12 hours
Click to expand...
Architecture. I am responsible for and to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.

I can be held criminally negligent if someone gets hurt.

You have to screw up pretty bad to get to that point but it's on the table. Plenty of lesser crimes I can be held responsible for once licensed.

I have a duty to maintain that standard. If i do everything i could have reasonably done I should be cleared. But trying once would not cover me in either civil or criminal court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#622
#622
LouderVol said:
Architecture. I am responsible for and to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.

I can be held criminally negligent if someone gets hurt.

You have to screw up pretty bad to get to that point but it's on the table. Plenty of lesser crimes I can be held responsible for once licensed.

I have a duty to maintain that standard. If i do everything i could have reasonably done I should be cleared. But trying once would not cover me in either civil or criminal court.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there plenty of things to do with architecture that the average citizen cannot do
 
#623
#623
Credo said:
You nailed it. This is not a war between races, this is a war between good and evil. Racism does not exist, it has always been a spiritual battle
Click to expand...

Good job Wisconsin governor and all other elected officials not upholding the duties of their office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#624
#624
VolStrom said:
I don't know any facts in this other than what I saw on the video. The man that got shot wasn't making a move like he was getting into the car to drive as he was reaching into it for something. If I'm a cop and have a second to decide what to do with someone that is non-compliant and he's reaching into a car seat I'm pulling the trigger. This guy was a thug with a long history of being arrested, I'm not going to assume he has good intentions.
Click to expand...
I have said it before. That reach I to the car justifies the shooting. It does not justify the rest of the cops actions.

It can be a good shoot but a bad situation. And imo it is. Just because the end action is justified doesnt clear the rest of the actions from fault.

I dont know what you call it, "dereliction of duty" sounds more extreme than this. But looking at the situation I cant see it as a good thing, I want better from the cops. I dont know if its jail time, probation, or what cops can face for not following the laws and training they have, but I see a lot of fault on their plate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top