[QUOTE=Killuah;48328287]he tried? when? when he repetedly asked "do you have your license on you" when the guy had answered "no"? when he just repeated the questions and the protocol he learned instead of dealing with the situation ?[/QUOTE]
"Tensing: "OK, until I can figure out if you have a license or not, go ahead and take your seat belt off.""
LIKE RIGHT THERE.
He literally asked him to get out of the vehicle calmly and he didn't. He then tried to drive off and got a bullet in the head for it. That was HIS mistake.
EDIT:
I'm staying out of this argument after this because it's obvious that people in this thread don't understand that a vehicle is a two ton killing machine. The victim was a danger to himself and the public, and was apprehended in an unfortunate way because he chose to resist arrest and flee the police, which will always be the wrong side. You can claim the police did something wrong, but when he did things that were clearly written in the rulebook that were wrong, he put those cops under a lot of pressure and about 2 or 3 seconds in total to deal with it in some way. He tried for the keys, no luck, was stuck in the vehicle as it was moving, so he fired a shot to subdue and missed. He rolled out and luckily did not get his legs bent backwards by the offender's back tires.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48328361]There's a reason why traffic cameras are being phased out in the Northeast and there is a reason why cameras are not allowed in federal courts. I don't see why anyone should be held to a machine standard. Either the law should change to be more lenient towards officers caught in murky situations or the usage of bodycams should be restricted in some way.[/QUOTE]
serve and protect (the police officers from going to jail when they kill unarmed civilians "on accident")
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48328384]"Tensing: "OK, until I can figure out if you have a license or not, go ahead and take your seat belt off.""
LIKE RIGHT THERE.
He literally asked him to get out of the vehicle calmly and he didn't. He then tried to drive off and got a bullet in the head for it. That was HIS mistake.[/QUOTE]
victim blaming, again. "he walked in front of a murderer, and got murdered. HIS mistake!"
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327193]The prosecution seems to think otherwise, he's charged with murder.[/QUOTE]
"The people who's job it is to say he's guilty, say he's guilty"
Good work there
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48328361]There's a reason why traffic cameras are being phased out in the Northeast and there is a reason why cameras are not allowed in federal courts. I don't see why anyone should be held to a machine standard. Either the law should change to be more lenient towards officers caught in murky situations or the usage of bodycams should be restricted in some way.[/QUOTE]
But these have been just as much a tool for protecting officers as they have citizens. Just off the top of my head, I can recall two particular examples of this: an officer accused of being sexually aggressive towards a young female suspect, and a shooting at an Applebee's against somebody with a toy gun. In both of these cases, the footage completely exonerated the officers involved. Even in this case, the footage may be enough to protect the officer from legal ramifications, as the only thing the defense attorney needs to prove is reasonable doubt, which I myself would argue is present. On the flip side, the footage does highlight this particular officer's unprofessionalism and poor judgment, so while it may potentially exonerate him from prison time, it will likely cost him his position. That, in my opinion, is a system working correctly.
And the absolute LAST thing we need to do is give officers MORE leeway to use lethal force. That's just absurd.
I'm betting he reached through the steering wheel, which would have immediately caught his arm if the car went forward. Unfortunate, but I can see the cop fearing for his life. Reaching in to grab the keys doesn't seem like the brightest move, but it is hardly negligence. It was him trying to keep the driver from doing something stupid and starting a high speed chase.
Such a shitty situation. Seems like it could have been avoided, but I'm hard pressed to damn the cop to prison over a completely understandable, and not malicious, series of choices.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48328287]he tried? when? when he repetedly asked "do you have your license on you" when the guy had answered "no"? when he just repeated the questions and the protocol he learned instead of dealing with the situation ?[/QUOTE]Right here:[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48328384]He literally asked him to get out of the vehicle calmly and he didn't. He then tried to drive off and got a bullet in the head for it. That was HIS mistake.[/QUOTE]This post. Plus he opted to shut off the engine rather than hauling the guy the fuck out of his car and cuffing him in the street.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328385]victim blaming, again. "he walked in front of a murderer, and got murdered. HIS mistake!"[/QUOTE]Except that's not what happened at all, it's more like "well that guy was trying to murder somebody and they killed him instead."
Waving your arms around and yelling "VICTIM BLAMING, FOUL ON YOU SIR!!!!" isn't an automatic win for your argument, sometimes the victim is [i]entirely[/i] at fault.
[editline]god damn it nukefuzz[/editline]
Don't misunderstand me, Killuah, the officer did fuck up but I don't think he's criminally negligent in any way.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328385]serve and protect (the police officers from going to jail when they kill unarmed civilians "on accident")
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
victim blaming, again. "he walked in front of a murderer, and got murdered. HIS mistake!"[/QUOTE]
For fucking real?? Is this a joke?
He was asked by a civil officer, whom he was subject to as a detainee (which he was as he had committed two offenses) and then disobeyed a command even though he was detained under federal law. That is not victim blaming. He was not a victim until he got shot. If he hadn't knowingly made a decision that disagreed with an armed officer, he would very much so be alive, with a fine of like $200. Better than your head, in my opinion. If he had complied, he would not be a victim.
-snipe-
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48328401]But these have been just as much a tool for protecting officers as they have citizens. Just off the top of my head, I can recall two particular examples of this: an officer accused of being sexually aggressive towards a young female suspect, and a shooting at an Applebee's against somebody with a toy gun. In both of these cases, the footage completely exonerated the officers involved. Even in this case, the footage may be enough to protect the officer from legal ramifications, as the only thing the defense attorney needs to prove is reasonable doubt, which I myself would argue is present. On the flip side, the footage does highlight this particular officer's unprofessionalism and poor judgment, so while it may potentially exonerate him from prison time, it will likely cost him his position. That, in my opinion, is a system working correctly.[/QUOTE]
That is reasonable. I'd wager that there would be more cases like the ones you highlighted than those where they'd cause harm, but I couldn't help but feel a bit cautious about them considering those hypothetical possibilities I pointed out.
Maybe things will become better for both officers and civilians as bodycams become more advanced and the law adapts to their use.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48328441]
Except that's not what happened at all, it's more like "well that guy was trying to murder somebody and they killed him instead."
Waving your arms around and yelling "VICTIM BLAMING, FOUL ON YOU SIR!!!!" isn't an automatic win for your argument, sometimes the victim is [i]entirely[/i] at fault.[/QUOTE]
he wasn't trying to kill anyone so that doesn't work does it.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48328441]Right here:This post. Plus he opted to shut off the engine rather than hauling the guy the fuck out of his car and cuffing him in the street.
Except that's not what happened at all, it's more like "well that guy was trying to murder somebody and they killed him instead."
Waving your arms around and yelling "VICTIM BLAMING, FOUL ON YOU SIR!!!!" isn't an automatic win for your argument, sometimes the victim is [i]entirely[/i] at fault.[/QUOTE]
actually its more like "well that guy was trying to drive away from the police and they killed him instead"
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48328448]For fucking real?? Is this a joke?
He was asked by a civil officer, whom he was subject to as a detainee (which he was as he had committed two offenses) and then disobeyed a command even though he was detained under federal law. That is not victim blaming. He was not a victim until he got shot. If he hadn't knowingly made a decision that disagreed with an armed officer, he would very much so be alive, with a fine of like $200. Better than your head, in my opinion. If he had complied, he would not be a victim.[/QUOTE]
so anyone that disagreeing with an "armed officer" is liable to be killed and that's just ok?
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328471]so anyone that disagreeing with an "armed officer" is liable to be killed and that's just ok?[/QUOTE]
He didn't just "disagree", he started his vehicle and began to drive away with an officer hanging onto him through the window. The officer felt his life was in danger, so he used deadly force. The officer tries to take control of the suspect at first, but then the suspect starts the car. The officer yells "Stop, stop!", but the car beings moving forward, and the officer fires his weapon.
by the way there is no need to preface your post with inflammatory rhetoric towards me
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328460]he wasn't trying to kill anyone so that doesn't work does it.[/QUOTE]Do you know that for sure? Can you prove that?
[QUOTE=Leon;48328462]actually its more like "well that guy was trying to drive away from the police and they killed him instead"[/QUOTE]I was trying to go with a terrible analogy, I can only work with what I'm given.
SORRY.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;48328475]He didn't just "disagree", he started his vehicle and began to drive away with an officer hanging onto him through the window. The officer felt his life was in danger, so he used deadly force.[/QUOTE]
it was the officer's choice to hang on to him through the window. all he had to do was let go. I'm not quite sure what danger you are saying he was in.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328460]he wasn't trying to kill anyone so that doesn't work does it.[/QUOTE]
Driving unlicensed is the equivalent of trying to kill someone under US law, as if you are an unlicensed driver, you don't know how to drive, therefore, you are a danger to everyone else on the road. This guy might not have been suspended and might have just never had his license before, and the officer couldn't know because he couldn't produce his damn license, so he should not even be in the driver's seat of the car with the ignition on. The cop had no knowledge of what this guy could be.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328471]so anyone that disagreeing with an "armed officer" is liable to be killed and that's just ok?[/QUOTE]
Yes, if you resist arrest or detainment you are liable to be killed. That is well fuckin known. Especially if you might be endangering someone else on the road.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48328481]Do you know that for sure? Can you prove that?
I was trying to go with a terrible analogy, I can only work with what I'm given.
SORRY.[/QUOTE]
for one:
Well he didn't have a gun on him and there was no way he could have killed anyone if he had tried to other than running someone over I suppose which he couldn't have done.
secondly: that is a very odd mindest to have I think, going far beyond innocent until proven guilty. I don't even understand it
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328482]it was the officer's choice to hang on to him through the window. all he had to do was let go. I'm not quite sure what danger you are saying he was in.[/QUOTE]
The danger that you observe is irrelevant, all that matters is that the officer personally felt he was in danger. A vehicle has capability to do serious harm, the suspect was not complying, and he attempted to drive away while the officer was attempting to control the suspect. The officer felt he was in danger, and it's not your call to say that he wasn't.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48328457]That is reasonable. I'd wager that there would be more cases like the ones you highlighted than those where they'd cause harm, but I couldn't help but feel a bit cautious about them considering those hypothetical possibilities I pointed out.
Maybe things will become better for both officers and civilians as bodycams become more advanced and the law adapts to their use.[/QUOTE]
I feel that your worries, even if they did come to fruition, are better than the alternative. Previously, there were so many cases where we had essentially no clarity to the events at all, outside of the officer's own testimony. In these cases, we dealt with everything you just listed as a concern PLUS the lack of any immediate and transparent evidence to counter it.
For example, the very case that prompted these cameras: the Michael Brown shooting. We have a pretty decent idea of what transpired NOW, but in the early stages of the case, the co flicting narratives of the officer, witnesses, and supposed witnesses led to confusion and rage. How much simpler would that entire ordeal have been had the officer simply had a camera on him? People still might criticise his judgment, sure, but if video had shown that Brown had been beating him, and the officer fired his weapon while being attacked (as the evidence suggests), tensions never would have risen as high as they had.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48328483]Driving unlicensed is the equivalent of trying to kill someone under US law, as if you are an unlicensed driver, you don't know how to drive, therefore, you are a danger to everyone else on the road. This guy might not have been suspended and might have just never had his license before, and the officer couldn't know because he couldn't produce his damn license, so he should not even be in the driver's seat of the car with the ignition on. The cop had no knowledge of what this guy could be.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
Yes, if you resist arrest or detainment you are liable to be killed. That is well fuckin known. Especially if you might be endangering someone else on the road.[/QUOTE]
If it is the equivalent to that under US law, why are people driving without a liceness not charged for attempted murder or manslaughter? That sounds entirely made up. Yes, it may be dangerous, but it is not the same as murder.
my question was not if it is true or not that you are liable to be killed, but is that okay? morally, is it okay to kill someone for resisting arrest? you can do it, but is it right
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328508]If it is the equivalent to that under US law, why are people driving without a liceness not charged for attempted murder or manslaughter? That sounds entirely made up. Yes, it may be dangerous, but it is not the same as murder.
my question was not if it is true or not that you are liable to be killed, but is that okay? morally, is it okay to kill someone for resisting arrest? you can do it, but is it right[/QUOTE]
You are liable to be killed if you resist violently and give the officer reason to believe his life is in danger.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;48328496]The danger that you observe is irrelevant, all that matters is that the officer personally felt he was in danger. A vehicle has capability to do serious harm, the suspect was not complying, and he attempted to drive away while the officer was attempting to control the suspect. The officer felt he was in danger, and it's not your call to say that he wasn't.[/QUOTE]
an officer can feel he is in danger when someone gives him an angry look. feelings are not something you can use to justify murder. you need evidence you were in danger, etc. the driver vehicle COULD do serious harm, but was in no position to do so when he was killed
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=dragon1972;48328518]You are liable to be killed if you resist violently and give the officer reason to believe his life is in danger.[/QUOTE]
you still didn't answer the question
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328385]serve and protect (the police officers from going to jail when they kill unarmed civilians "on accident")
[/QUOTE]
The civilian wasn't unarmed though. He was noncompliant with a simple traffic stop and then tried to drive off. At that point its pretty clear that he's hiding something which could quite easily be a weapon.
Not to mention that the car itself IS a weapon no matter how much you people like to harp on the whole "ban all cars hurr slippery slope".
What makes the car a weapon is the intent to use it to cause bodily harm which was, indeed, quite a possibility in this case.
Lets analyze the concrete facts rather then analyze a few blurry frames of video.
1. The officer pulled someone over for a routine traffic stop.
2. The driver was noncompliant when asked to get out of the vehicle.
3. The driver then STARTS the vehicle, and gets shot after trying to speed off.
From these three facts we can infer that there is someone potentially hiding weapons/drugs in their car while also being non-compliant with the officer. Furthermore that person happens be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
If the officer hadn't shot him then what would've happened? The officer could've potentially been run over by the fleeing suspect. It also could start a high speed chase putting further civilians in danger.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328482]it was the officer's choice to hang on to him through the window. all he had to do was let go. I'm not quite sure what danger you are saying he was in.[/QUOTE]It's the officer's job to stop him for one, for two how do you know that the officer could simply let go? Maybe he was tense from all the adrenaline? Scared?
Or. Or...
All the guy had to do was not drive off and drag somebody with his car.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328494]for one:
Well he didn't have a gun on him and there was no way he could have killed anyone if he had tried to other than running someone over I suppose which he couldn't have done.[/QUOTE]Explain this. In every other situation driving a vehicle with somebody hanging on is [i]reckless driving[/i] and it will get you in trouble because it is a [i]crime.[/i]
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328494]secondly: that is a very odd mindest to have I think, going far beyond innocent until proven guilty. I don't even understand it[/QUOTE]I don't even understand what the fuck you're trying to say here. Plus you're the one who called the cop a murderer and the driver a victim who "walked" in front of a murderer and got murdered, not me.
[editline]oh and[/editline]
You know it's entirely possible to consider the officer a victim here of attempted vehicular manslaughter. You brought up the stuff about victim blaming as if it's some type of logical fallacy which, again, it really isn't. It's entirely possible to hold all of the blame and still be a victim, quite often a victim of one's own stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, or some other personality trait.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328508]If it is the equivalent to that under US law, why are people driving without a liceness not charged for attempted murder or manslaughter? That sounds entirely made up. Yes, it may be dangerous, but it is not the same as murder.
my question was not if it is true or not that you are liable to be killed, but is that okay? morally, is it okay to kill someone for resisting arrest? you can do it, but is it right[/QUOTE]
If they can hurt someone else, which Samuel very well could have, yes, it was right in this case. If they could hurt me, yes, which the officer felt in this case. Is it okay to kill someone for running away with a pound of heroin? I would say yes, because that person can cause a lot of harm to people that may do heroin. Is it okay to kill someone for running away for something any less than that? Likely not. I would agree with you on this in most cases, but this is not one of them. It is normally not necessary to kill in order to subdue. This man would have pulled that officer along, he would have to run back to his car, and start the chase, and a highspeed chase has a way higher chance of causing damage to the public than a guy getting shot in the head.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328519]an officer can feel he is in danger when someone gives him an angry look. feelings are not something you can use to justify murder. you need evidence you were in danger, etc. the driver vehicle COULD do serious harm, but was in no position to do so when he was killed
[/QUOTE]
He was in plenty of position to do serious harm. Guess what happens when people flee from the police in vehicles? High speed chases which put MANY more people in harms way.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328529]The civilian wasn't unarmed though. He was noncompliant with a simple traffic stop and then tried to drive off. At that point its pretty clear that he's hiding something which could quite easily be a weapon.
Not to mention that the car itself IS a weapon no matter how much you people like to harp on the whole "ban all cars hurr slippery slope".
What makes the car a weapon is the intent to use it to cause bodily harm which was indeed quite a possibility in this case.
Lets analyze the concrete facts rather then analyze a few blurry frames of video.
1. The officer pulled someone over for a routine traffic stop.
2. The driver was noncompliant when asked to get out of the vehicle.
3. The driver then STARTS the vehicle, and gets shot after trying to speed off.
From these three facts we can infer that there is someone potentially hiding weapons/drugs in their car while also being non-compliant with the officer. Furthermore that person happens be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
If the officer hadn't shot him then what would've happened? The officer could've potentially been run over by the fleeing suspect. It also could start a high speed chase putting further civilians in danger.[/QUOTE]
he did not even motion for a weapon, and while the car COULD be a weapon, in that position it would have had to magically strafe to the left. while he may be hiding drugs or what have you, you don't get shot for having drugs so that's a moot point in my eyes.
as far as high speed chases are concerned, I believe police shouldn't chase vehicles.
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48328531]It's the officer's job to stop him for one, for two how do you know that the officer could simply let go? Maybe he was tense from all the adrenaline? Scared?
Or. Or...
All the guy had to do was not drive off and drag somebody with his car.
Explain this. In every other situation driving a vehicle with somebody hanging on is [i]reckless driving[/i] and it will get you in trouble because it is a [i]crime.[/i]
I don't even understand what the fuck you're trying to say here. Plus you're the one who called the cop a murderer and the driver a victim who "walked" in front of a murderer and got murdered, not me.[/QUOTE]
with that same logic, the driver could just be "scared." it doesn't mean anything. it's no justification.
it will get you in trouble, but it is not something that justifies murder.
and I'm asking you is it ok for someone to kill someone else if they are resisting arrest.
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328542]He was in plenty of position to do serious harm. Guess what happens when people flee from the police in vehicles? High speed chases which put MANY more people in harms way.[/QUOTE]
I'll restate I don't believe police should chase cars.
I mean, for me, it just boils down to a simple question: is the worst case scenario of officers having these cameras (officers being held to an unrealistic standard by the population and having to demonstrate machine-like professionalism to avoid criticism) better or worse than the worst case scenario of not having them (a lack of clarity and accountability leading to wanton abuse of power from a minority group of unprofessional officers resulting in unnecessary death, injury, and persecution of innocents and petty criminals)?
I vote bodycams. It's no contest.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328519]an officer can feel he is in danger when someone gives him an angry look. feelings are not something you can use to justify murder. you need evidence you were in danger, etc. the driver vehicle COULD do serious harm, but was in no position to do so when he was killed
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
you still didn't answer the question[/QUOTE]
It is morally okay to defend yourself from assault using deadly force. "Resisting arrest" is really broad, because its possible to non-violently resist arrest. If the officer was not already grabbing onto the vehicle and attempting to extract the suspect from the car as he started accelerating the officer would have no cause to use deadly force; however, the suspect began accelerating with the officer grabbing onto the car. This potentially endangered the officer as his legs or feet could be run over, or the car could suddenly veer toward him due to the suspect attempting to fight off the officer. The suspect is physically resisting the officers attempts at opening the door and unbuckling the seat belt while he starts the engine, so yes there are myriad ways this situation places the officer in danger.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
