Hillary is mouthing off again

[The Professor]

Playing the Anthem at sporting events is a tradition well over 100 years old. It wasn't until nine years ago when they had the NFL players enter the field before the Anthem.

You are born in the greatest country on earth. You became a millionaire playing a child's game. Is it too much to ask that you respect our flag and country for one minute?

Okay, so what are the protesting? They are protesting their ignorance of the law. They now turned football into a platform for race discrepancies. If a police officer does something illegal, they are brought to justice. If they are found to be in compliance with the law, they don't face any disciplinary actions, and that's what these big stupid jocks are protesting.

We don't live in the jungle. We live in a civilized society. We don't lock people up for something some may not like. We have laws in this country that we all abide by.

Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, and Holder, sent out the word that police ae being brutal against blacks, and that America is racist and oppressive to blacks. The jocks fall for it. They're just really stupid, that's all. And why would they know anything ?

They went to college, got super high paying jobs (just for playing a kid's game), and didn't serve in the military either. They're young, spoiled, they've been nowhere, they've done nothing, they know nothing.

The media is the biggest player in all this. We have a serious problem in this country with mind control by the media.

All police shootings and so-called brutality have one thing in common: the suspect didn't obey orders of the police. That's all. The solution to their problem is to just obey everything commanded by a police officer, and nobody gets shot or hurt. Too much to ask for from a liberal.

So instead, riot, burn down your town, execute police officers harmlessly sitting in a diner or their car, destroy public and private property, and yes, even kneel during the anthem. None of these actions will address their concerns, it's just that the easy way out is too easy for them.

I disagree with some of what you say but certainly not everything.

The police cannot use deadly force against a suspect just because the suspect fails to follow instructions. Police can use deadly force only to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party or to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“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.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The fairly recent case of officer Michael Slager should serve as an example. On April 4, 2015, 50-year old Walter Scott was pulled over by Officer Slager for a broken tail light. There is no video of the initial encounter between Slager and Scott, but it was reported that Scott offered resistance and there was a minor scuffle between the two (neither Slager or Scott had any visible injuries). When Slager pulled out his taser Scott managed to wrestle it away from him. It was also reported that Scott fired the taser at Slager but missed. There was a video taken by an observer but it begins showing Scott running away from the scene and Slager shooting him in the back.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. An attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is not considered a dangerous weapon and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed. In fact, many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like.

Scott was tried for murder but there was a hung jury with only one juror voting for acquittal. Scott got the message and accepted a 20-year sentence rather that take his chances with another jury.

By the way, here's a video showing a man pleading for his life and desperately trying to follow an officer's confusing instructions but is killed anyway:

Video shows Arizona man sobbing, begging for his life before fatal police shooting

A jury found the officer, Philip Brailsford, innocent although I can't for the life of me figure out how. The officer is being sued and I hope a civil court jury has better judgment. It appears the officer had a previous well-documented use of excessive force but I doubt this was allowed into evidence at his criminal trial.

Cop who killed Daniel Shaver had a history of excessive force, video shows

CONCLUSION: Police do not have the right to use deadly force just because a suspect fails to follow instructions. Sometimes police shoot those who try their best to follow instructions. The man shot by Officer Brailsford appeared to be afraid, confused and complaint. Hell, I'm 78 years old and I could have cuffed the man without killing him. He was on the ground, face down with his arms stretched out in front of him. All Brailsford had to do was walk up to the man, get him to put his hands behind him and cuff him. There was at least one other officer present along with Brailsford so taking the man into custody should not have been a problem.

There are other shootings which were completely justified but were portrayed in the media as being racially motivated. Some Blacks believed the media and went on a rampage. The media should have expected this so they have blood on their hands. Even if a police shooting was unjustified that does not justify a violent response against others and their property. Any Black person who kills an innocent cop because they believe another officer killed a Black suspect without just cause is a worthless POS, the worst kind of criminal and dumb as a rock. I suppose that if a Black man raped my daughter, I could wait for an innocent Black worker who just put in a 14-hour shift and is going home to his family for a quick meal and some sack time and put a bullet in his head. It doesn't matter who I kill as long as I kill somebody to get a message across or just to make me feel better, right?

Damn, this world is getting crazier by the minute.

Okay, now lets take some hypotheticals in the situations you outlined.

If you ever watch the show COPS, you will see criminals acting out a part. They lie, they cry, they claim injuries when you know damn well they are not injured at all just to try and get out of trouble or going to jail.

I've seen the video of the man crying. While I admit it's pretty convincing, what if it was all an act?

The officer told the subject several times DO NOT PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK! He did so several times. Now if you're a police officer, you might think "wait a minute, he's trying to get his hand behind him for some reason!" If I remember correctly, the officer explicitly stated he will shoot to protect himself if the subject put his hands behind his back one more time. And he did.

In the other situation, if you attack a police officer, he is in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. A taser paralyzes a person. That means if a criminal uses one on an officer, he could easily disarm the officer and use his very own gun on him. I would constitute that as a possible deadly situation. He attacked the police officer and the officer has every right to defend himself and the public. If a guy is crazy or desperate enough to attack an officer, it's only a stones throw away that he is capable of killing that officer.

In the first case, I see things differently and I will not debate the matter. I will, however, challenge what you said in the second case.

Referring to the Slager case, you said, “In the other situation, if you attack a police officer, he is in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. A taser paralyzes a person. That means if a criminal uses one on an officer, he could easily disarm the officer and use his very own gun on him. I would constitute that as a possible deadly situation. He attacked the police officer and the officer has every right to defend himself and the public. If a guy is crazy or desperate enough to attack an officer, it's only a stones throw away that he is capable of killing that officer.”

In my analysis of the case, I was clear that merely using a taser on an officer did not make Scott a dangerous felon and therefore Office Slager had no right to shoot him in the back as he was running away. Slager did not use deadly force to prevent being tasered; he used it to prevent Scott from escaping and that made the officer a murderer. He agreed to a 20-year prison sentence because he knew he had no legal defense. You do present a good argument for a different set of circumstances. If a person had a taser and threatened to use it on an officer, a jury might conclude that the officer had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury while being incapacitated. This would justify the use of deadly force. Great point.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's what drones do in a robotic authoritarian society.

No, that's what respectable citizens do in a civilized society. Yes, in a civilized society we have a pecking order of authority. We don't take matters into our own hands when it comes to confrontation. We hire police and we the people GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORITY to enforce the laws our representatives create.

Police officers represent the people......at least the good people. Because of that, they deserve our respect and cooperation.

This just in -- "respect" is earned. It doesn't come as part of a uniform.

This whole concept of "Infallible Authority just because it IS Authority" is supremely wacko.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually it's what drones do in a robotic authoritarian society.

No, that's what respectable citizens do in a civilized society. Yes, in a civilized society we have a pecking order of authority. We don't take matters into our own hands when it comes to confrontation. We hire police and we the people GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORITY to enforce the laws our representatives create.

Police officers represent the people......at least the good people. Because of that, they deserve our respect and cooperation.

This just in -- "respect" is earned. It doesn't come as part of a uniform.

This whole concept of "Infallible Authority just because it IS Authority" is supremely wacko.

Well, then go live in a jungle if that's the way you feel. No laws, no authority except who is the largest and strongest. Tell us how it works out for ya.

 

[Nova78]

She scares you still. Good.

Hillary Clinton told a receptive audience over the weekend in India that while she thought President Donald Trump played to some of Americans' worst fears, he does not reflect the country as a whole. "No, we did not deserve that," Clinton said when asked if the US "deserves" Trump as its leader.



I'm not a Donald Trump supporter by a longshot, but I sincerely wish Hillary Clinton would shut her mouth. Her opinions are valueless, and her political future is non existent. Go away Hillary, no one cares about you anymore!



Hillary Clinton: US does 'not deserve' Trump - CNNPolitics

She is insane ,as are those who follow her bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Playing the Anthem at sporting events is a tradition well over 100 years old. It wasn't until nine years ago when they had the NFL players enter the field before the Anthem.

You are born in the greatest country on earth. You became a millionaire playing a child's game. Is it too much to ask that you respect our flag and country for one minute?

Okay, so what are the protesting? They are protesting their ignorance of the law. They now turned football into a platform for race discrepancies. If a police officer does something illegal, they are brought to justice. If they are found to be in compliance with the law, they don't face any disciplinary actions, and that's what these big stupid jocks are protesting.

We don't live in the jungle. We live in a civilized society. We don't lock people up for something some may not like. We have laws in this country that we all abide by.

Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, and Holder, sent out the word that police ae being brutal against blacks, and that America is racist and oppressive to blacks. The jocks fall for it. They're just really stupid, that's all. And why would they know anything ?

They went to college, got super high paying jobs (just for playing a kid's game), and didn't serve in the military either. They're young, spoiled, they've been nowhere, they've done nothing, they know nothing.

The media is the biggest player in all this. We have a serious problem in this country with mind control by the media.

All police shootings and so-called brutality have one thing in common: the suspect didn't obey orders of the police. That's all. The solution to their problem is to just obey everything commanded by a police officer, and nobody gets shot or hurt. Too much to ask for from a liberal.

So instead, riot, burn down your town, execute police officers harmlessly sitting in a diner or their car, destroy public and private property, and yes, even kneel during the anthem. None of these actions will address their concerns, it's just that the easy way out is too easy for them.

I disagree with some of what you say but certainly not everything.

The police cannot use deadly force against a suspect just because the suspect fails to follow instructions. Police can use deadly force only to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party or to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“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.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The fairly recent case of officer Michael Slager should serve as an example. On April 4, 2015, 50-year old Walter Scott was pulled over by Officer Slager for a broken tail light. There is no video of the initial encounter between Slager and Scott, but it was reported that Scott offered resistance and there was a minor scuffle between the two (neither Slager or Scott had any visible injuries). When Slager pulled out his taser Scott managed to wrestle it away from him. It was also reported that Scott fired the taser at Slager but missed. There was a video taken by an observer but it begins showing Scott running away from the scene and Slager shooting him in the back.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. An attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is not considered a dangerous weapon and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed. In fact, many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like.

Scott was tried for murder but there was a hung jury with only one juror voting for acquittal. Scott got the message and accepted a 20-year sentence rather that take his chances with another jury.

By the way, here's a video showing a man pleading for his life and desperately trying to follow an officer's confusing instructions but is killed anyway:

Video shows Arizona man sobbing, begging for his life before fatal police shooting

A jury found the officer, Philip Brailsford, innocent although I can't for the life of me figure out how. The officer is being sued and I hope a civil court jury has better judgment. It appears the officer had a previous well-documented use of excessive force but I doubt this was allowed into evidence at his criminal trial.

Cop who killed Daniel Shaver had a history of excessive force, video shows

CONCLUSION: Police do not have the right to use deadly force just because a suspect fails to follow instructions. Sometimes police shoot those who try their best to follow instructions. The man shot by Officer Brailsford appeared to be afraid, confused and complaint. Hell, I'm 78 years old and I could have cuffed the man without killing him. He was on the ground, face down with his arms stretched out in front of him. All Brailsford had to do was walk up to the man, get him to put his hands behind him and cuff him. There was at least one other officer present along with Brailsford so taking the man into custody should not have been a problem.

There are other shootings which were completely justified but were portrayed in the media as being racially motivated. Some Blacks believed the media and went on a rampage. The media should have expected this so they have blood on their hands. Even if a police shooting was unjustified that does not justify a violent response against others and their property. Any Black person who kills an innocent cop because they believe another officer killed a Black suspect without just cause is a worthless POS, the worst kind of criminal and dumb as a rock. I suppose that if a Black man raped my daughter, I could wait for an innocent Black worker who just put in a 14-hour shift and is going home to his family for a quick meal and some sack time and put a bullet in his head. It doesn't matter who I kill as long as I kill somebody to get a message across or just to make me feel better, right?

Damn, this world is getting crazier by the minute.

Okay, now lets take some hypotheticals in the situations you outlined.

If you ever watch the show COPS, you will see criminals acting out a part. They lie, they cry, they claim injuries when you know damn well they are not injured at all just to try and get out of trouble or going to jail.

I've seen the video of the man crying. While I admit it's pretty convincing, what if it was all an act?

The officer told the subject several times DO NOT PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK! He did so several times. Now if you're a police officer, you might think "wait a minute, he's trying to get his hand behind him for some reason!" If I remember correctly, the officer explicitly stated he will shoot to protect himself if the subject put his hands behind his back one more time. And he did.

In the other situation, if you attack a police officer, he is in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. A taser paralyzes a person. That means if a criminal uses one on an officer, he could easily disarm the officer and use his very own gun on him. I would constitute that as a possible deadly situation. He attacked the police officer and the officer has every right to defend himself and the public. If a guy is crazy or desperate enough to attack an officer, it's only a stones throw away that he is capable of killing that officer.

In the first case, I see things differently and I will not debate the matter. I will, however, challenge what you said in the second case.

Referring to the Slager case, you said, “In the other situation, if you attack a police officer, he is in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. A taser paralyzes a person. That means if a criminal uses one on an officer, he could easily disarm the officer and use his very own gun on him. I would constitute that as a possible deadly situation. He attacked the police officer and the officer has every right to defend himself and the public. If a guy is crazy or desperate enough to attack an officer, it's only a stones throw away that he is capable of killing that officer.”

In my analysis of the case, I was clear that merely using a taser on an officer did not make Scott a dangerous felon and therefore Office Slager had no right to shoot him in the back as he was running away. Slager did not use deadly force to prevent being tasered; he used it to prevent Scott from escaping and that made the officer a murderer. He agreed to a 20-year prison sentence because he knew he had no legal defense. You do present a good argument for a different set of circumstances. If a person had a taser and threatened to use it on an officer, a jury might conclude that the officer had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury while being incapacitated. This would justify the use of deadly force. Great point.

Thank you very much Professor. I think the mentality of the officer is that he was dealing with a nut. A police officer does have the right to use deadly force to stop a suspect he (or she) believes is a danger to the public. I didn't follow or study this case, but I'm guessing that the judge and jury didn't see his use of deadly force justifiable for that reason. The officer assumed he was dealing with a dangerous person, but didn't have any evidence to support his assumption.

It is a good story to demonstrate that yes, police officers are held accountable when they break the law. When they are found not guilty of any wrongdoing, their actions were perfectly legal whether we like it or not.

 

[protectionist]

I disagree with some of what you say but certainly not everything.

The police cannot use deadly force against a suspect just because the suspect fails to follow instructions. Police can use deadly force only to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party or to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“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.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The fairly recent case of officer Michael Slager should serve as an example. On April 4, 2015, 50-year old Walter Scott was pulled over by Officer Slager for a broken tail light. There is no video of the initial encounter between Slager and Scott, but it was reported that Scott offered resistance and there was a minor scuffle between the two (neither Slager or Scott had any visible injuries). When Slager pulled out his taser Scott managed to wrestle it away from him. It was also reported that Scott fired the taser at Slager but missed. There was a video taken by an observer but it begins showing Scott running away from the scene and Slager shooting him in the back.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. An attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is not considered a dangerous weapon and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed. In fact, many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like.

Scott was tried for murder but there was a hung jury with only one juror voting for acquittal. Scott got the message and accepted a 20-year sentence rather that take his chances with another jury.

By the way, here's a video showing a man pleading for his life and desperately trying to follow an officer's confusing instructions but is killed anyway:

Video shows Arizona man sobbing, begging for his life before fatal police shooting

A jury found the officer, Philip Brailsford, innocent although I can't for the life of me figure out how. The officer is being sued and I hope a civil court jury has better judgment. It appears the officer had a previous well-documented use of excessive force but I doubt this was allowed into evidence at his criminal trial.

Cop who killed Daniel Shaver had a history of excessive force, video shows

CONCLUSION: Police do not have the right to use deadly force just because a suspect fails to follow instructions. Sometimes police shoot those who try their best to follow instructions. The man shot by Officer Brailsford appeared to be afraid, confused and complaint. Hell, I'm 78 years old and I could have cuffed the man without killing him. He was on the ground, face down with his arms stretched out in front of him. All Brailsford had to do was walk up to the man, get him to put his hands behind him and cuff him. There was at least one other officer present along with Brailsford so taking the man into custody should not have been a problem.

There are other shootings which were completely justified but were portrayed in the media as being racially motivated. Some Blacks believed the media and went on a rampage. The media should have expected this so they have blood on their hands. Even if a police shooting was unjustified that does not justify a violent response against others and their property. Any Black person who kills an innocent cop because they believe another officer killed a Black suspect without just cause is a worthless POS, the worst kind of criminal and dumb as a rock. I suppose that if a Black man raped my daughter, I could wait for an innocent Black worker who just put in a 14-hour shift and is going home to his family for a quick meal and some sack time and put a bullet in his head. It doesn't matter who I kill as long as I kill somebody to get a message across or just to make me feel better, right?

Damn, this world is getting crazier by the minute.

Dude, you've been in this forum long enough to know we don't read books here. You need to make your posts more concise. Since I chose to not spend half the day reading your post, I'll just say 2 things >>

1. Police, in self-defense, sometimes shoot (and kill) suspects, when suspects move their hands out of sight of the officer. Rule 1 - you CANNOT allow your hands to be not visible to the cop. If you do, you'll be shot.

2. Tennessee vs Garner established the fleeing felon rule. If felon is fleeing, he can be shot to prevent his escape, thereby protecting the community from future harm from the felon. Slager was justified in shooting Scott (a fleeing felon). And a scuffle with a policeman certainly DOES make Scott a dangerous felon. A "scuffle" as you call it, can easily result in death or serious injury. Scott having fought with a cop, shows he can and would fight with anybody, thus a clear danger to the community. 100% justification for application of the FFR.

PS - you said "Scott was tried for murder"....and....,"Scott got the message and accepted a 20-year sentence". I believe you meant to say Slager, not Scott.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree with some of what you say but certainly not everything.

The police cannot use deadly force against a suspect just because the suspect fails to follow instructions. Police can use deadly force only to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party or to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“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.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The fairly recent case of officer Michael Slager should serve as an example. On April 4, 2015, 50-year old Walter Scott was pulled over by Officer Slager for a broken tail light. There is no video of the initial encounter between Slager and Scott, but it was reported that Scott offered resistance and there was a minor scuffle between the two (neither Slager or Scott had any visible injuries). When Slager pulled out his taser Scott managed to wrestle it away from him. It was also reported that Scott fired the taser at Slager but missed. There was a video taken by an observer but it begins showing Scott running away from the scene and Slager shooting him in the back.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. An attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is not considered a dangerous weapon and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed. In fact, many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like.

Scott was tried for murder but there was a hung jury with only one juror voting for acquittal. Scott got the message and accepted a 20-year sentence rather that take his chances with another jury.

By the way, here's a video showing a man pleading for his life and desperately trying to follow an officer's confusing instructions but is killed anyway:

Video shows Arizona man sobbing, begging for his life before fatal police shooting

A jury found the officer, Philip Brailsford, innocent although I can't for the life of me figure out how. The officer is being sued and I hope a civil court jury has better judgment. It appears the officer had a previous well-documented use of excessive force but I doubt this was allowed into evidence at his criminal trial.

Cop who killed Daniel Shaver had a history of excessive force, video shows

CONCLUSION: Police do not have the right to use deadly force just because a suspect fails to follow instructions. Sometimes police shoot those who try their best to follow instructions. The man shot by Officer Brailsford appeared to be afraid, confused and complaint. Hell, I'm 78 years old and I could have cuffed the man without killing him. He was on the ground, face down with his arms stretched out in front of him. All Brailsford had to do was walk up to the man, get him to put his hands behind him and cuff him. There was at least one other officer present along with Brailsford so taking the man into custody should not have been a problem.

There are other shootings which were completely justified but were portrayed in the media as being racially motivated. Some Blacks believed the media and went on a rampage. The media should have expected this so they have blood on their hands. Even if a police shooting was unjustified that does not justify a violent response against others and their property. Any Black person who kills an innocent cop because they believe another officer killed a Black suspect without just cause is a worthless POS, the worst kind of criminal and dumb as a rock. I suppose that if a Black man raped my daughter, I could wait for an innocent Black worker who just put in a 14-hour shift and is going home to his family for a quick meal and some sack time and put a bullet in his head. It doesn't matter who I kill as long as I kill somebody to get a message across or just to make me feel better, right?

Damn, this world is getting crazier by the minute.

Dude, you've been in this forum long enough to know we don't read books here. You need to make your posts more concise. Since I chose to not spend half the day reading your post, I'll just say 2 things >>

1. Police, in self-defense, sometimes shoot (and kill) suspects, when suspects move their hands out of sight of the officer. Rule 1 - you CANNOT allow your hands to be not visible to the cop. If you do, you'll be shot.

2. Tennessee vs Garner established the fleeing felon rule. If felon is fleeing, he can be shot to prevent his escape, thereby protecting the community from future harm from the felon. Slager was justified in shooting Scott (a fleeing felon). And a scuffle with a policeman certainly DOES make Scott a dangerous felon. A "scuffle" as you call it, can easily result in death or serious injury. Scott having fought with a cop, shows he can and wouod fight with anybody, thus a clear danger to the community. 100% justification for application of the FFR.

I think there is a lot of red tape there. When you physically attack a police officer, you committed a felony. However you were not convicted of the crime until you have the case heard in court.

If it were up to me, it would be legal for a police officer to shoot anybody running away from them. It happens so often in my neighborhood and it's aggravating. If people knew they could legally be shot running away from a cop, maybe they would stop doing it.

 

[protectionist]

Actually it's what drones do in a robotic authoritarian society.

And the whole lockstep jingoism exercise at the sporting event is where it starts. That, and the fetish prayer idolatry in the schoolroom. Once you get the masses bending over any time you say 'boo' and you know they won't question it, you have free rein. And to help get you there you have the universal hypnotist of Television to keep them lobotomized. Nice and docile and pliant. And when you see your marks going out to buy inverted bathtubs and calling them "SUVs", you know you've reached the point where you can suggest anything, and they'll do it.

This thread's another example of the same mentality --- an OP who wants a voice that sounds like it's challenging Authority literally shut down. Even the colloquialism in his thread title -- "mouthing off" --- sounds like a cop about to bust some heads because he doesn't like what those heads are saying.

It's about >>

1. obeying THE LAW, and

2. not giving a cop a self-defense reason to shoot you (like stupidly reaching into your jacket, pocket, or car window) Keep this in mind, if you want to survive.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hillary Clinton told a receptive audience over the weekend in India that while she thought President Donald Trump played to some of Americans' worst fears, he does not reflect the country as a whole. "No, we did not deserve that," Clinton said when asked if the US "deserves" Trump as its leader.



I'm not a Donald Trump supporter by a longshot, but I sincerely wish Hillary Clinton would shut her mouth. Her opinions are valueless, and her political future is non existent. Go away Hillary, no one cares about you anymore!



Hillary Clinton: US does 'not deserve' Trump - CNNPolitics

I want Hiltery to tour the world for another 30 years.....

/——/ I want Hillary to live another 30 Plus Years —- for Bull’s sake. He deserves it after all.

 

[protectionist]

Okay, now lets take some hypotheticals in the situations you outlined.

If you ever watch the show COPS, you will see criminals acting out a part. They lie, they cry, they claim injuries when you know damn well they are not injured at all just to try and get out of trouble or going to jail.

I've seen the video of the man crying. While I admit it's pretty convincing, what if it was all an act?

The officer told the subject several times DO NOT PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK! He did so several times. Now if you're a police officer, you might think "wait a minute, he's trying to get his hand behind him for some reason!" If I remember correctly, the officer explicitly stated he will shoot to protect himself if the subject put his hands behind his back one more time. And he did.

In the other situation, if you attack a police officer, he is in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. A taser paralyzes a person. That means if a criminal uses one on an officer, he could easily disarm the officer and use his very own gun on him. I would constitute that as a possible deadly situation. He attacked the police officer and the officer has every right to defend himself and the public. If a guy is crazy or desperate enough to attack an officer, it's only a stones throw away that he is capable of killing that officer.

Putting your hands behind your back is putting them out of sight from the cop. You do that and you've given the cop good reason to shoot you (in self-defense)

 

[protectionist]

In the first case, I see things differently and I will not debate the matter. I will, however, challenge what you said in the second case.

Referring to the Slager case, you said, “In the other situation, if you attack a police officer, he is in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. A taser paralyzes a person. That means if a criminal uses one on an officer, he could easily disarm the officer and use his very own gun on him. I would constitute that as a possible deadly situation. He attacked the police officer and the officer has every right to defend himself and the public. If a guy is crazy or desperate enough to attack an officer, it's only a stones throw away that he is capable of killing that officer.”

In my analysis of the case, I was clear that merely using a taser on an officer did not make Scott a dangerous felon and therefore Office Slager had no right to shoot him in the back as he was running away. Slager did not use deadly force to prevent being tasered; he used it to prevent Scott from escaping and that made the officer a murderer. He agreed to a 20-year prison sentence because he knew he had no legal defense. You do present a good argument for a different set of circumstances. If a person had a taser and threatened to use it on an officer, a jury might conclude that the officer had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury while being incapacitated. This would justify the use of deadly force. Great point.

FALSE! Slager is not a murderer. He shot Scott justifiably under the fleeing felon rule.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's what drones do in a robotic authoritarian society.

And the whole lockstep jingoism exercise at the sporting event is where it starts. That, and the fetish prayer idolatry in the schoolroom. Once you get the masses bending over any time you say 'boo' and you know they won't question it, you have free rein. And to help get you there you have the universal hypnotist of Television to keep them lobotomized. Nice and docile and pliant. And when you see your marks going out to buy inverted bathtubs and calling them "SUVs", you know you've reached the point where you can suggest anything, and they'll do it.

This thread's another example of the same mentality --- an OP who wants a voice that sounds like it's challenging Authority literally shut down. Even the colloquialism in his thread title -- "mouthing off" --- sounds like a cop about to bust some heads because he doesn't like what those heads are saying.

It's about >>

1. obeying THE LAW, and

2. not giving a cop a self-defense reason to shoot you (like stupidly reaching into your jacket, pocket, or car window) Keep this in mind, if you want to survive.

Or in my case, simply walking home minding my own business.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's what drones do in a robotic authoritarian society.

No, that's what respectable citizens do in a civilized society. Yes, in a civilized society we have a pecking order of authority. We don't take matters into our own hands when it comes to confrontation. We hire police and we the people GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORITY to enforce the laws our representatives create.

Police officers represent the people......at least the good people. Because of that, they deserve our respect and cooperation.

This just in -- "respect" is earned. It doesn't come as part of a uniform.

This whole concept of "Infallible Authority just because it IS Authority" is supremely wacko.

Well, then go live in a jungle if that's the way you feel. No laws, no authority except who is the largest and strongest. Tell us how it works out for ya.

And you be sure to report back how endless bending over whenever The Man tells you to works out for you too.
As if I don't already know.

 

[toobfreak]

Hillary Clinton told a receptive audience over the weekend in India that while she thought President Donald Trump played to some of Americans' worst fears, he does not reflect the country as a whole. "No, we did not deserve that," Clinton said when asked if the US "deserves" Trump as its leader.

And there you have why opinions on Trump around the world are low. Have you ever seen a Republican trash talk a sitting president around the world? Obama trash talked the USA when he got into office. Other nations look for FB on how to interpret events; how can another country respect a leader when its own people don't, and from Day One, Democrats have done nothing but hang onto Trump and weigh him down like nowhere else in history. I hope the GOP is paying attention because it began with GW and it won't get any better in the future------ the American People have rolled out the Red Carpet for the Republicans and the Republicans have shown themselves to be wobbly, weak-kneed, spineless jerks, and the Democratic Party has become an organized Fascist movement where they will attack anything outside or even within its own walls unless it tows the perfect party line set forth by their masters from overseas.

 

[protectionist]

Or in my case, simply walking home minding my own business.

Oh, and what if you fit the description of somebody the cops are looking for ? You're not the perp, but the cops don't know that yet. So you're in a confrontation with them. You better know what to do, and what NOT to do.

This, liberal "educators" don't educate about. Their weak spot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually it's what drones do in a robotic authoritarian society.

No, that's what respectable citizens do in a civilized society. Yes, in a civilized society we have a pecking order of authority. We don't take matters into our own hands when it comes to confrontation. We hire police and we the people GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORITY to enforce the laws our representatives create.

Police officers represent the people......at least the good people. Because of that, they deserve our respect and cooperation.

This just in -- "respect" is earned. It doesn't come as part of a uniform.

This whole concept of "Infallible Authority just because it IS Authority" is supremely wacko.

Well, then go live in a jungle if that's the way you feel. No laws, no authority except who is the largest and strongest. Tell us how it works out for ya.

And you be sure to report back how endless bending over whenever The Man tells you to works out for you too.
As if I don't already know.

It works out very well for me and most Americans. I've been stopped before, and I gave the officer my ultimate respect and cooperation. Never been beat up, shot, or charged with anything. In fact they returned the respect.

As a truck driver, we get stopped all the time for no reason at all. They don't have to have a reason. I just give them the information they request and aid them in the inspection of my tractor and trailer. In most cases, they just let you on your way unless they find something major wrong like the breaks or something else that could be a danger to other motorists. Because of the way I treat them, they let anything minor go.

But hey! You want to give the cops a hard time, be my guest. I know people just like you and the cops always gave them a hard time right back.

 

[Pogo]

It works out very well for me and most Americans. I've been stopped before, and I gave the officer my ultimate respect and cooperation. Never been beat up, shot, or charged with anything. In fact they returned the respect.

That's good luck when it works out that way. But it can easily turn a 180 with no influence on your part whatsoever. Which is what happens when you start handing out too much power to those who can't handle it.

 

[Pogo]

And there you have why opinions on Trump around the world are low. Have you ever seen a Republican trash talk a sitting president around the world?

Really?

​

Obviously, see the image in my signature as well. Guess who he's talking about there.

DAMN that was some low hanging fruit.

 

[Pogo]

Or in my case, simply walking home minding my own business.

Oh, and what if you fit the description of somebody the cops are looking for ? You're not the perp, but the cops don't know that yet. So you're in a confrontation with them. You better know what to do, and what NOT to do.

This, liberal "educators" don't educate about. Their weak spot.

Actually, and we've done this before, I didn't fit the description at all in any way. Literally everything was different. I heard that description directly from the murder witness. All I did was happen to be the first guy they saw on the street. And they pulled guns on me, never identified themselves, and started screaming as they handcuffed me.

Also known as "Tuesday".

 

[Rambunctious]

Lock her up!!!!