[QUOTE=OvB;35845351]Is it not possible that every instance that a suspect was shot in the back had the man fleeing? What if the suspect was on a drug and decided it would be a good idea to attack someone to his side or behind him, and the officer just so happened to have hit is back when he pulled the trigger.[/QUOTE]
Addressed above.
Shooting of fleeing suspects falls under extremely heavy scrutiny. There are exceptions, but it is expected for those exceptions to be provable under investigation.
EDIT:
Additionally, if anyone would like to know WHY I am suspicious of police in these instances, please read about Tennessee v. Garner: in which police shot a fleeing, unarmed, 15-year-old boy in the head for burglary.
My question is: Why in the US (and propably in many other countries) there is one police officer per police car? Wouldn't be it more safer that there would be two officers?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845358]Because being shot in the back means the suspect, in almost all cases, must have been facing [I]away[/I] from the officer. This is generally considered a non-threatening posture, and does not constitute lethal force (using a firearm.)
As for fleeing suspects, Tennessee v. Garner set the precedence that police may not open fire on a fleeing suspect unless they believe they are a danger to the police or bystanders. i.e. you can shoot a fleeing maniac firing a machine gun. You may not shoot a fleeing robber or mugger. Additionally, if the officer DOES use his discretion to those ends and opens fire, it is expected that the evidence and corroborating witnesses will mirror his discretion.[/QUOTE]
how can you tell for sure if fleeing suspects is the main source of getting shot in the back? you don't have access to that kind of data so you're just basing your entire argument on assumptions. the man in the video explained why in some cases suspects have shots on the front [B]and[/B] the back
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845391]how can you tell for sure if fleeing suspects is the main source of getting shot in the back? you don't have access to that kind of data so you're just basing your entire argument on assumptions. the man in the video explained why in some cases suspects have shots on the front [B]and[/B] the back[/QUOTE]
Because there are more suspects that run than suspects that fight.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845399]Because there are more suspects that run than suspects that fight.[/QUOTE]
Where the fuck are you pulling these "facts" from
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35845353]Ok
[img]http://madgearsolid.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PhelpsFace2.png[/img][/QUOTE]
what is this supposed to even mean
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35845423]what is this supposed to even mean[/QUOTE]
(X) Doubt
Guys chill out. Lankist thinks harder than us and knows bigger words than us. He only argues because he doesn't know how to counter argue. Really Lankist the only reason you wouldn't respond to my post because you didn't know or didn't want to insult me? Please, by the gods, thank you for sparing me. I thought you were going to try to counter-argue me so that I might think you were right in some way. I guess all you want to do is argue with every other single person. I mean really what kind of self-righteous borehole turkey gobble is just going to keep saying "No, I didn't say that I said this", but not even counter-argue anybody's arguments to your pretentious statements. You act like so expert debater, but you're just terrible at it.
[QUOTE="Lankist"]He's not talking about one specific case, he's talking about every instance of "officer shoots man in back" that makes its way throughout the media.
On one hand, the lady in the beginning says police are human and fallible. On the other, this guy implies that cops never shoot fleeing suspects.
He gives this scenario and he cites no specific instances of it ever actually happening. It is an unnecessarily complex assumption.[/QUOTE]
IN WHAT SENTENCE DID HE STATE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT EVERY INSTANCE. None. You stated he was talking about every instance, but you are incorrect. He also better pull out those papers to provide evidence of these statements so we can read them and know hes right because, man, I don't think he is a viable source of information. It's like you trying to prove that the police are back shooting little pigs. Is that it? I mean you would be correct if all your police experience comes from Saints Row 3 or GTA4, but I haven't seen many police shootings with police killing the suspect in the back. Have you ever thought that the back shots could come from running away after an assault? I think all you're trying to do is put the police in a bad spot.
I already know you're going to say insulting someone is not a viable option of debating, but I'm not debating. I'm just saying you're 'roid raging everyone into a fury to cure your unwilling acceptance of your (almost*) complete wrongness.
*So I can be (almost) politically correct just like you.
-snipped so you can have a nice conversation with choco cookie-
[QUOTE=The Rizzler;35845414]Where the fuck are you pulling these "facts" from[/QUOTE]
Oh come on now, this is common knowledge.
The vast majority of police arrests are on non-violent offenses, some of whose suspects flee. An extreme minority of cases involve any sort of serious violence (beyond resisting arrest), which are the only cases in which lethal force (discharge of a firearm) is authorized.
Haven't you ever watched COPS, dude?
Lankist, you obviously agree that the situations where a person could get shot in the back by a police officer are not as black and white as fleeing or not fleeing? right? Then what are we arguing over exactly?
I'm sure there's a percent of confrontations where the man was fleeing and the cop was in the wrong.
I'm sure there's a percent of confrontations where the man had his back to the officer but was threatening to others there's which constituted lethal force.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845444]not even the police have that kind of control over where they want to shoot, it could have just as easily been a non-lethal body shot.
it should also be noted that he was at the time acting legally until that very case made his actions illegal from then on.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, by american law, there is no such thing as a non-lethal shooting. All shootings are considered lethal force, whether they result in death or not.
Police do not discharge a firearm without the intent to kill. It is a firearm, not a taser. Every shot fired is shot with the intent to kill. This is why police are trained to aim for the center of mass, as mentioned in this video, and not in extremities.
If you use lethal force, no matter what actually happens, it MUST be justifiable.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35845438](X) Doubt[/QUOTE]
He was probably a long time guest until he saw a thread he really wanted to give his thoughts on.
same way I joined.
[QUOTE=OvB;35845462]Lankist, you obviously agree that the situations where a person could get shot in the back by a police officer are not as black and white as fleeing or not fleeing? right? Then what are we arguing over exactly?
I'm sure there's a percent of confrontations where the man was fleeing and the cop was in the wrong.
I'm sure there's a percent of confrontations where the man had his back to the officer but was threatening to there's which constituted lethal force.[/QUOTE]
Because police shooting people in the back is not a "myth" as presented in this propaganda film.
it happens, far too frequently, and the explanation provided in this video is a piss-poor one that completely ignores all of the notable and public cases of police shooting people in the back intentionally.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35845438](X) Doubt[/QUOTE]
okay don't care point is I was around for Lankist before his ban
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845470]He was probably a long time guest until he saw a thread he really wanted to give his thoughts on.
same way I joined.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Either way this thread is a shitstorm. I'm done.
Lankist, it's pretty amazing that you pull facts from your ass, then tell people it's common knowledge when refusing to actually supply evidence
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845463]Uhm, by american law, there is no such thing as a non-lethal shooting. All shootings are considered lethal force, whether they result in death or not.
Police do not discharge a firearm without the intent to kill. It is a firearm, not a taser. Every shot fired is shot with the intent to kill. This is why police are trained to aim for the center of mass, as mentioned in this video, and not in extremities.
If you use lethal force, no matter what actually happens, it MUST be justifiable.[/QUOTE]
sure, pick apart my already snipped words. I meant in that it wouldn't kill him like a shot to the head would but since I'm not an English teacher I used wrong words.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;35845492]Lankist, it's pretty amazing that you pull facts from your ass, then tell people it's common knowledge when refusing to actually supply evidence[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that the majority of crimes in the United States are violent crimes?
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845498]sure, pick apart my already snipped words. I meant in that it wouldn't kill him like a shot to the head would but since I'm not an English teacher I used wrong words.[/QUOTE]
The point is that police aren't supposed to shot at someone they aren't justified in killing. Fleeing suspects are very rarely considered threatening.
I decided to some work for Lankist. I should be his secretary. Hire me now for 5 bucks every other second.
[URL]http://www.sdcda.org/files/OIS_Report_100907.pdf[/URL]
[URL]http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf[/URL]
[URL]http://www.killzonevoices.com/finalrpt3.pdf[/URL]
Actually this work isn't "for" Lankist. More like at Lankist.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845499]Are you implying that the majority of crimes in the United States are violent crimes?[/QUOTE]
No I am outright stating the entirety of every crime ever results in all parties dying
seriously, I can't help but laugh that you assign that point to something like that, instead of, you know, every other point you've made
pretty sure the fact you can't even evaluate your own point or rhetoric means you're just arguing to be an ass, willing to bet you'd never change your mind
See:
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845358]Because being shot in the back means the suspect, in almost all cases, must have been facing [I]away[/I] from the officer. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845448]Oh come on now, this is common knowledge.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845499]Are you implying that the majority of crimes in the United States are violent crimes?[/QUOTE]
No, he's implying you pull facts out of your ass.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845499] Fleeing suspects are very rarely considered threatening.[/QUOTE]
Like that one. What justifies that statement and proves the opposite is false?
Those are not the statistics anyone was asking for.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845558]Like that one. What justifies that statement and proves the opposite is false?[/QUOTE]
Court precedence.
I already cited it. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Landmark Supreme Court case which set the limits for officers using lethal force on fleeing suspects. It's on wikipedia.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845562]Those are not the statistics anyone was asking for.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
Court precedence.
I already cited it. Tennessee v. Garner.
Landmark Supreme Court case which set the limits for officers using lethal force on fleeing suspects.[/QUOTE]
Oh I should have known it takes 2 minutes to read all those statistics. Man I read my sources so much that I must become anti-educated in the manner.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;35845595]Oh I should have known it takes 2 minutes to read all those statistics. Man I read my sources so much that I must become anti-educated in the manner.[/QUOTE]
They are demanding national crime statistics to which I do not have access to, but simply make inferences based upon local crime statistics.
You referenced OIS statistics, which aren't directly relevant to the current discussion on the legality of lethal force in use against fleeing suspects.
As for local crime statistics, I recommend you look up your own area's. They are freely available by law in most states through whatever web presence your state/district has.
In other words, this argument, like every other one on the internet, was completely fucking pointless amounting to nothing whatsoever. Thank you Lankist for starting and ending a riveting battle of wits that future generations will always look back on for guidance.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845670]In other words, this argument, like every other one on the internet, was completely fucking pointless amounting to nothing whatsoever. Thank you Lankist for starting and ending a riveting battle of wits that future generations will always look back on for guidance.[/QUOTE]
Why are you continually ignoring TN v. Garner?
You asked for evidence, I gave evidence, and now suddenly it's all a big waste of time?
Methinks you do not like the evidence presented.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845677]Why are you continually ignoring TN v. Garner?
You asked for evidence, I gave evidence, and now suddenly it's all a big waste of time?
Methinks you do not like the evidence presented.[/QUOTE]
I must respond to this to save the world because what I say matters so much.
I don't give a fuck that it's 3:35 AM and I have Prob/Stat homework to do!
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845701]I must respond to this to save the world because what I say matters so much.
I don't give a fuck that it's 3:35 AM and I have Prob/Stat homework to do![/QUOTE]
That's fine, just say so. There's no need to dismiss the entire conversation as being pointless and insult all of its participants when you really just want to go to bed.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845075]A person hits the ground by doing a somersault forward?
Because typically when someone is shot forward and starts to fall, they fall in a backward direction. They do not typically flip forward at such an angle that a direct shot to the back is possible. A graze is certainly possible, but not a direct shot.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the majority of calibres out there will not have nearly enough kinetic energy to make a person fall backwards. If they do fall backwards, that's purely psychological effect, not so much because of the round in question. And if someone twists around, or staggers while being shot, it's very much possible for a round to strike the back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
