[QUOTE=Lankist;35845727]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]
Alright, Threads over. Lankist wins. Everyone go home.
So, the beat cops and the guy with the weird stache are from Eugene, Oregon. AKA where I've lived for the last two years. It's a quiet university town, so I don't know exactly where their anxieties or shootout experiences are coming from.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845619]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.[/QUOTE]
Wait, don't you remember? You started multiple arguments. I mean if you want me to wait later when this one is over I can wait. I'll just sit here in Japan and look at my local crime statistics because, well, my sources aren't really the SAME FREAKIN' RODDENBERRY THING. (They aren't because I'm in Japan and those are in US and we are debating this because this is based in US crime).
Oh wait, I can provide to this discussion you are having. In my sources the average OIS is under 7 yards. The average for over 7 yards is 11%. The hit ratio is 48% under 7 yards and over 7 yards it is 7%. That means that barely many OIS end up in with the suspect fleeing and also that if it did they missed, but lets say they are running away and we hit him. around 40% the suspect has a gun and 75% the suspect has a lethal weapon. Well, lets just say he didn't have a lethal weapon. 32% of OIS is in the streets so they can run. Well only 17% involved foot chases before the shooting. He is still running in this case though. Lets keep going. 77% cases are with the suspect drunk or on drugs, but our guys is going to be completely fine. UH OH! We hit him! He had no weapons! Not drunk or on drugs! Was it misinterpretation? Well 60% of OIS are Officers responding to radio calls. Most of the calls are called for Robbery or Family/Domestic violence. Well we are going to say in it was the 15% of self-initiated OIS due to suspicious person. Well we came up to the guy because we got a radio call that he was a suspicious person, he ran away on foot, we shot him in the back (how lucky), he wasn't drunk or on drugs, and it was on the street. Oh And he died. Welp, I guess we are going to jail, losing all of our money, and losing our job. AW man! I guess it's not legal to do that! What if he drunk or on drugs? Probably still get in trouble. What if he shot then ran? Shoot back! You're going to miss most likely! How about just holding a lethal weapon and ran? Can't shoot, but doing so would be self-initiated. A no-no, but not that serious. How about a robbery or F/DV and he was running away? Same as before. I can just keep doing all the encounters, but in the end it's going to up for interpretation.
Dude, you need a thesis. I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say right now.
I'm talking about Supreme Court precedence, which sort of overrules any statistics you can come up with.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845937]Dude, you need a thesis. I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say right now.
I'm talking about Supreme Court precedence, which sort of overrules any statistics you can come up with.[/QUOTE]
What in the world about it. That an officer must have a reason to shoot them if they are fleeing? I just posted this huge post showing when an officer can shooting a fleeing suspect containing facts. Where's your thesis? Nobody knows where you stand. Where's your thesis? Where's your sources? Where's your supporting claims? All I did was debate that a fleeing suspect getting shot in the back is usually at the fault of the suspect and not the Officer and that in some cases that the TNvG comes into play and the Officer is at fault.
"Legality of lethal force in use against fleeing suspects." As you said is the subject of your discussion. My thesis? RIGHT THERE ALL OVER. BUT wait. Now you say it is about "Supreme Court precedence"? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? I DON'T KNOW! Maybe I should point out which parts are facts and which parts up for debate and which parts I thought of while dunking chicken nuggets in sweet honey sauce and licking my fingers then pressed shift on my keyboard and went "Dang now I have Sticky Keys!" No, but really. I just 'debated all over that subject.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;35846109]What in the world about it. That an officer must have a reason to shoot them if they are fleeing? I just posted this huge post showing when an officer can shooting a fleeing suspect containing facts. Where's your thesis? Nobody knows where you stand. Where's your thesis? Where's your sources? Where's your supporting claims? All I did was debate that a fleeing suspect getting shot in the back is usually at the fault of the suspect and not the Officer and that in some cases that the TNvG comes into play and the Officer is at fault.
"Legality of lethal force in use against fleeing suspects." As you said is the subject of your discussion. My thesis? RIGHT THERE ALL OVER. BUT wait. Now you say it is about "Supreme Court precedence"? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? I DON'T KNOW! Maybe I should point out which parts are facts and which parts up for debate and which parts I thought of while dunking chicken nuggets in sweet honey sauce and licking my fingers then pressed shift on my keyboard and went "Dang now I have Sticky Keys!" No, but really. I just 'debated all over that subject.[/QUOTE]
look, choco, i'm not exactly a huge fan of lankist but i didn't get what you were trying to say either. It may be in your interest to restructure that paragraph.
I noticed this video using the excuse (i agree with the conclusions of the video but this particular train of thought needs to die) "Police officers are only human, so we shouldn't hold them to any standard." What about the people you're throwing in jail? Aren't they "only human" too? Doesn't that mean we should be more forgiving of criminals who "only made a mistake" as well if the men in uniform are allowed to make mistakes too?
I'd be all for that, but when you have a police force [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGlbWKKbD4]that assaults and harasses civilians[/url] and a majority of the time files "they attacked me first" whether or not they actually did, and often contrary to evidence found later(and sadly there's no repercussion when they are found to have lied), you'd have to set the forgiveness level pretty damn high for so-called criminals. I'll not go into all the other stuff thats been done to not only protesters but random civilians, as i think its pretty widely understood what type of stuff goes on at this point.
So what does this mean? Fuck the police? Well, no. It just means that the system of police we use is flawed and needs to either be fixed or remade from the ground up, preferably with new people that aren't corrupt. Or actually embrace the constitution for once and allow people who are having their life threatened or rights infringed by officers to defend themselves. This would of course be subject to a court to determine whether or not it was justified, in contrast to now where police are almost always given a free pass for no reason.
Lankist should watch this informative video on edged weapons.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFr30p0aZl0[/media]
Anyone see the police knife defense video?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-326WnWwWE[/media]
These are just a few scenes from it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845937]Dude, you need a thesis. I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say right now.
I'm talking about Supreme Court precedence, which sort of [B]overrules any statistics you can come up with.[/B][/QUOTE]
Statistics are statistics. Nothing overrules them.
Thats like saying "The supreme court said that, that light can go 3x the speed of light so all that science you just did with all those theories, are now garbage."
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843969]This is not an argument.
This is a commentary on a single claim's veracity, and its lack of proper evidence.
The mere fact that someone on youtube who happens to be wearing a suit says something does not invalidate the necessity for proper explanation. I am not implying he is wrong. I am implying he has done very little do demonstrate the validity of his claim.
For a video seemingly aimed at police, it's doing a very poor job at speaking to them as qualified and intelligent individuals. This particular explanation opens many, many questions, which are left unaddressed.
Why would an assailant swing a weapon [I]in front[/I] of the officer? Does he not have depth perception? Wouldn't he be swinging the weapon *at* the officer, and not some distance in *front* of the officer? Exposing one's back is not a conventional defensive posture.
How is the motion of swinging the weapon faster than the firing of a gun between shot #3 and shot #4?
Why is this particular officer trained to shoot four consecutive times without verifying whether the threat has been dealt with?
Also, where is the forensic analysis of the impact angle of the bullet in question? If someone were hunched over in a swinging posture, then the impact of the bullet would reflect that in the angle it enters and travels through the assailant's body. It would be traveling in a downward motion through the shoulder/upper back toward the lower back. If the bullet's trajectory goes from back-to-front in relation to the body, then it could not have been at the angle this man claims.[/QUOTE]
If you watch the video you'll hear that officers are trained to fire 4 shots within a fraction of a second. This is extremely true; it's as much a reaction as blinking is. That'd be the same as saying, "Stop blinking halfway before your upper lid reaches or bottom lid." By the time the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th shots are fired the suspect is already doubling over and dying; this is how some suspects get bullets in the back.
Either way, I don't see what the issue is; it's not like officers are gunning down suspects from behind; so why does it matter if a shot or two hit them in the back? As long as the officer is responding properly to a deadly situation then it's fine.
[QUOTE=areolop;35850098]Statistics are statistics. Nothing overrules them.
Thats like saying "The supreme court said that, that light can go 3x the speed of light so all that science you just did with all those theories, are now garbage."[/QUOTE]
Uhm, in the United States, when it comes to law, nothing is higher than a Supreme Court ruling.
That's why they're called the Supreme Court.
They rule based upon constitutionality and evidence, and their rulings are the highest form of legal precedence in this nation. Nothing overrules them save for future Supreme Court precedence.
When the Supreme Court rules that shooting fleeing suspects (in the back) is suspicious and requires a great deal of evidence and a very particular circumstance to justify, it is. Period.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;35850117]Either way, I don't see what the issue is; it's not like officers are gunning down suspects from behind;[/QUOTE]
Tennessee v. Garner.
It happens. More often than you'd like to believe.
We're not talking about that though. You're going completely off topic. Plus that case happened in the 1980s.
[QUOTE=MR-X;35852607]We're not talking about that though. You're going completely off topic. Plus that case happened in the 1980s.[/QUOTE]
And the 15 year old boy who was shot and killed would have been 42 years old this year. For a burglary charge, he likely wouldn't have even served any time as a minor. That kid would have grown up. And he didn't.
There is no excuse for police taking life unnecessarily. None. No amount of successes on behalf of the police will ever outweigh even one single life taken unnecessarily.
The point is that the notion of police shooting people in the back is NOT a myth. It happens. The badge is neither infallible nor sacrosanct. No amount of propaganda is going to change the need for accountability.
The fact that you people dismiss such horrible things undertaken under the name of law enforcement as urban mythology is disgusting. Edward Garner is not a fictional character from Hollywood. To imply that these cases are Hollywood myths is a fucking insult to all of the victims of police brutality and excessive force throughout our nation's history all the way to present day.
Your blind, implicit trust of police is juvenile, and your disregard for people such as Edward Garner is frankly insulting.
Bro, the supreme court cannot overrule statistics because [B]THEY ARE STATISTICS.[/B] Seriously, what is wrong with you.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35852630]And the 15 year old boy who was shot and killed would have been 42 years old this year. For a burglary charge, he likely wouldn't have even served any time as a minor. That kid would have grown up. And he didn't.
There is no excuse for police taking life unnecessarily. None. No amount of successes on behalf of the police will ever outweigh even one single life taken unnecessarily.
The point is that the notion of police shooting people in the back is NOT a myth. It happens. The badge is neither infallible nor sacrosanct. No amount of propaganda is going to change the need for accountability.
The fact that you people dismiss such horrible things undertaken under the name of law enforcement as urban mythology is disgusting. Edward Garner is not a fictional character from Hollywood. To imply that these cases are Hollywood myths is a fucking insult to all of the victims of police brutality and excessive force throughout our nation's history all the way to present day.
Your blind, implicit trust of police is juvenile, and your disregard for people such as Edward Garner is frankly insulting.[/QUOTE]
Ok, guess what that case happened in 1980's and its over. We all agree on it. None of us are against it.
There is no excuse for police taking life unnecessarily. We all agree. Thank for pointing that out. The success of the police will outweigh their bad decisions since they keep the country safe.
The myth, as I think you don't understand, is when a suspect is running away, like in the movies, the police shoot at him regardless if he had a weapon or was going to harm anyone. With that saying when that does happen, as rarely as it does, the cop still pays the consequences for his actions. Look at my post that uses statistics to show the rarity of the situation of a police shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and it causing the officer to go to jail. the rarity of the case causes it to be a myth that it is common.
None of us are dismissing horrible actions from the police. I don't even know what actions we are dismissing. Garner is isn't a fictional character, yes we know that. None of us said that the case was a myth either rather than the myth that was stated in the video is a myth.
Now we all have blind trust for the police because you though we were against something that we aren't and support something that we don't. None of us also disregarded Garner.
afaik - Police can shoot someone in the back.
[quote=Minnesota State Statue, 609.066 Sub2, 2&3]
[B](2)[/B] to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
[B](3)[/B] to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.[/quote]
[url]https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.066[/url]
ie: If someone robs a bank with a gun, then runs toward a school -- The officer has legal grounds to shoot him in the back.
Now shut-up Lankist.
[QUOTE=areolop;35854474]afaik - Police can shoot someone in the back.
[url]https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.066[/url]
ie: If someone robs a bank with a gun, then runs toward a school -- The officer has legal grounds to shoot him in the back.
Now shut-up Lankist.[/QUOTE]
Minnesota legislation does not overrule supreme court precedence.
And if you had fucking read the precedence, you'd see the reflection.
Of course, you didn't. You wanted a circle-jerk and you lost your shit the moment anyone called boo.
Dude, there is no precedent on if an officer can shoot someone in the back. If there is (there isnt), I want to see it spelt out in a court-case, with link, and all the presiding judges standings.
[QUOTE=areolop;35854562]Dude, there is no precedent on if an officer can shoot someone in the back. If there is (there isnt), I want to see it spelt out in a court-case, with link, and all the presiding judges standings.[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking blind. I posted it like five times.
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1[/url]
Tennessee v. Garner. Supreme Court precedence
An unarmed, fleeing fifteen year old boy was shot through the back of the head for stealing a purse containing $10. The court ruled that lethal force may not be used unless the suspect is an immediate threat (forensic evidence and witnesses MUST corroborate that the suspect was a threat following the shooting, otherwise the officer has used excessive force), AND all other methods of apprehending the suspect have been exhausted. The minority opinion was that fleeing suspects might commit rape in the future, so they should be shot.
This is why you fucking question the police. Sometimes they murder children. It is not Hollywood mythology. This video is propaganda, plain and simple.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
Just google "Officer shoots fleeing suspect," for christ's sakes.
Deadly force can be used if necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
What areolop posted goes more in-depth into it and is used for police. So it's still correct. So yes he's right there's no exact precedent on if an officer can shoot someone in the back, only when he can use deadly force.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;35854798]Deadly force can be used if necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.[/QUOTE]
You left out a part:
[I]
"such force may not be used [B][U]unless[/U] necessary to prevent the escape[/B] and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[/I]
(Phrasing is very important.)
This means not only must the suspect be provably dangerous, but deadly force must also be the only available means of apprehending him. That is to say, if the officer can tackle, taze, talk-down or otherwise disarm the threat without using deadly force, they are not permitted to use deadly force.
And shooting someone in the back implies fleeing. It is on the police to prove they were [I]not[/I] fleeing. The burden of proof in all cases falls upon the police, and never upon the suspect. If someone is shot in the back, the automatic assumption is that they were fleeing or were otherwise non-threatening.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35854827]You left out a part:
[I]
"such force may not be used [B][U]unless[/U] necessary to prevent the escape[/B] and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[/I]
(Phrasing is very important.)
This means not only must the suspect be provably dangerous, but deadly force must also be the only available means of apprehending him. That is to say, if the officer can tackle, taze, talk-down or otherwise disarm the threat without using deadly force, they are not permitted to use deadly force.
And shooting someone in the back implies fleeing. It is on the police to prove they were [I]not[/I] fleeing. The burden of proof in all cases falls upon the police, and never upon the suspect. If someone is shot in the back, the automatic assumption is that they were fleeing or were otherwise non-threatening.[/QUOTE]
That's funny that I'm wrong in the phrasing since I copy and pasted that statement.
I understand that it can imply, but I did say no exact precedent on OIC involving suspect getting shot in the back. Also if someone is shot in the back the assumption is they were fleeing, not if they non-threatening.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;35855005]Also if someone is shot in the back the assumption is they were fleeing, not if they non-threatening.[/QUOTE]
Actually, "non-threatening" is the assumption in all cases until it is proven that the suspect [I]was[/I] a threat.
It's called "innocent until proven guilty," which is a concept that permeates our justice system. Until such a time that it is proven otherwise, everyone is innocent.
Lankist went full-retard. You never go full retard.
Lankist - You're wrong. An officer can shoot someone in the back (whether he be fleeing, or not) if he meets those standards outlined within the statute. Also that court-case just proves what I posted:
[quote]Held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others[/quote]
[QUOTE=areolop;35855160]Lankist - You're wrong. An officer can shoot someone in the back (whether he be fleeing, or not) if he meets those standards outlined within the statute. Also that court-case just proves what I posted:[/QUOTE]
And it's the officer's responsibility to prove it.
This precedence is in place because shooting innocent people in the back is no myth.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35855096]Actually, "non-threatening" is the assumption in all cases until it is proven that the suspect [I]was[/I] a threat.
It's called "innocent until proven guilty," which is a concept that permeates our justice system. Until such a time that it is proven otherwise, everyone is innocent.[/QUOTE]
Innocence and threat are completely different.
NO ONE POLICE OFFICER SHOOTS INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE BACK.
[QUOTE=areolop;35855205]NO ONE POLICE OFFICER SHOOTS INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE BACK.[/QUOTE]
Except for you know those cases I referenced.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
