Law Or No Law. That Is The Question.

[wherewoof]

When political correctness gets in the way of the law, political correctness MUST be done away with. Take all the crap going on about negro criminals being shot by cops. The negroes had an easy choice to make. Either obey the police or die. If they choose death, that's their problem. If only it ended there. But these days, many negroes can commit suicide by cop and have their families inherit a very nice nest egg by suing the police for using "excessive force."

Also, if the choice given a cop is to either shoot a negro criminal or let them go, only a scum sucking maggot would choose to let them go. Not long ago they made a big stink about a cop who was chasing some negro criminal. The cop caught him, they fought, then the negro took off again. Trailing taser wires behind him. So the cop pulled out his gun and shot him as he ran away. Instead of having to stand trial, the cop should have been given a medal!

 

[The Professor]

You are new to this forum and there are two thing I want to tell you. First, there are a lot of posters here who are experts on many different subjects, including law. I have a Doctorate in law and so do others. Second, when someone disagrees with you they are not trying to prove they are better than you or smarter than you; rather they are trying to teach you something about a particular subject they know more about than you do. I am certain that you know a lot more about a lot of things than I do, but because of my education and legal practice I propose I know more about the law than you.

In response to your article, generally, the police have no right to shot a suspect who is fleeing to avoid arrest. There is an exception only for those suspects who are consider dangerous felons, defined as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death. In the case of Tennessee v. Garner 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.

CONCLUSION A policeman can use deadly force if – at the time such force is used - the policeman has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or an innocent third party; however, once the threat no longer exists the use of deadly force must cease. A policeman cannot use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless the suspect is considered to be a dangerous felon; nor can a policeman use deadly force to effectuate an arrest unless the suspect has committed a crime using deadly force.

I believe you are referring to the case involving officer Michael Slager and Walter Scottt. 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. The question is: did Slager have the right to use deadly force to prevent Scott's escape? I contend he did not. The police can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if the suspect is a dangerous felon. This means that the suspect has either inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A minor scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. The attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is considered safe (many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like) and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed.

A federal grand jury apparently agreed with my assessment and Officer Slager was indicted on May 11, 2016. According to the following link, “The federal grand jury's indictment charged Slager with deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and obstruction of justice.

Walter Scott shooting death: Grand jury indicts ex-officer - CNN.com

(Update: There was a hung jury in the Slager trial, one juror refusing to convict; however, there is no doubt Slager will be tried again unless he cops a plea.)

 

[wherewoof]

You are new to this forum and there are two thing I want to tell you. First, there are a lot of posters here who are experts on many different subjects, including law. I have a Doctorate in law and so do others. Second, when someone disagrees with you they are not trying to prove they are better than you or smarter than you; rather they are trying to teach you something about a particular subject they know more about than you do. I am certain that you know a lot more about a lot of things than I do, but because of my education and legal practice I propose I know more about the law than you.

In response to your article, generally, the police have no right to shot a suspect who is fleeing to avoid arrest. There is an exception only for those suspects who are consider dangerous felons, defined as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death. In the case of Tennessee v. Garner 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.

CONCLUSION A policeman can use deadly force if – at the time such force is used - the policeman has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or an innocent third party; however, once the threat no longer exists the use of deadly force must cease. A policeman cannot use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless the suspect is considered to be a dangerous felon; nor can a policeman use deadly force to effectuate an arrest unless the suspect has committed a crime using deadly force.

I believe you are referring to the case involving officer Michael Slager and Walter Scottt. 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. The question is: did Slager have the right to use deadly force to prevent Scott's escape? I contend he did not. The police can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if the suspect is a dangerous felon. This means that the suspect has either inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A minor scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. The attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is considered safe (many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like) and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed.

A federal grand jury apparently agreed with my assessment and Officer Slager was indicted on May 11, 2016. According to the following link, “The federal grand jury's indictment charged Slager with deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and obstruction of justice.

Walter Scott shooting death: Grand jury indicts ex-officer - CNN.com

(Update: There was a hung jury in the Slager trial, one juror refusing to convict; however, there is no doubt Slager will be tried again unless he cops a plea.)

Thanks for telling me far more than I wanted to know. So excuse me for not reading it all. But I can tell you something I DO know about the law. And if you have a doctorate in the law, you should know it too. Which is that the "law" SUCKS! Why? Because those who created it suck! That aside, most laws are written for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. In fact, no matter what words are used to write any law, the law means what those in power choose to interpret it as meaning.

Take the law that says, "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are in jail awaiting to find out if you are innocent or not, those words are largely meaningless. Because innocent or guilty, the person would still be in jail.

But getting back on topic, "should" police have the right to shoot a fleeing criminal. I say they should. For one reason, if somebody is willing to flee from police, they are capable of anything.

Next, in a perfect world, the policeman should know before hand the complete criminal history of any fleeing criminal before deciding to give chase. But we don't live in a perfect world. So the police should be able to use deadly force if necessary to stop a fleeing criminal. It is or should be their job to apprehend fleeing criminals. (Unless public safety in a high speed car chase is a consideration) Not play judge and jury as to whether or not they deserve to be apprehended.

 

[The Professor]

You are new to this forum and there are two thing I want to tell you. First, there are a lot of posters here who are experts on many different subjects, including law. I have a Doctorate in law and so do others. Second, when someone disagrees with you they are not trying to prove they are better than you or smarter than you; rather they are trying to teach you something about a particular subject they know more about than you do. I am certain that you know a lot more about a lot of things than I do, but because of my education and legal practice I propose I know more about the law than you.

In response to your article, generally, the police have no right to shot a suspect who is fleeing to avoid arrest. There is an exception only for those suspects who are consider dangerous felons, defined as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death. In the case of Tennessee v. Garner 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.

CONCLUSION A policeman can use deadly force if – at the time such force is used - the policeman has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or an innocent third party; however, once the threat no longer exists the use of deadly force must cease. A policeman cannot use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless the suspect is considered to be a dangerous felon; nor can a policeman use deadly force to effectuate an arrest unless the suspect has committed a crime using deadly force.

I believe you are referring to the case involving officer Michael Slager and Walter Scottt. 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. The question is: did Slager have the right to use deadly force to prevent Scott's escape? I contend he did not. The police can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if the suspect is a dangerous felon. This means that the suspect has either inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A minor scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. The attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is considered safe (many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like) and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed.

A federal grand jury apparently agreed with my assessment and Officer Slager was indicted on May 11, 2016. According to the following link, “The federal grand jury's indictment charged Slager with deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and obstruction of justice.

Walter Scott shooting death: Grand jury indicts ex-officer - CNN.com

(Update: There was a hung jury in the Slager trial, one juror refusing to convict; however, there is no doubt Slager will be tried again unless he cops a plea.)

Thanks for telling me far more than I wanted to know. So excuse me for not reading it all. But I can tell you something I DO know about the law. And if you have a doctorate in the law, you should know it too. Which is that the "law" SUCKS! Why? Because those who created it suck! That aside, most laws are written for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. In fact, no matter what words are used to write any law, the law means what those in power choose to interpret it as meaning.

Take the law that says, "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are in jail awaiting to find out if you are innocent or not, those words are largely meaningless. Because innocent or guilty, the person would still be in jail.

But getting back on topic, "should" police have the right to shoot a fleeing criminal. I say they should. For one reason, if somebody is willing to flee from police, they are capable of anything.

Next, in a perfect world, the policeman should know before hand the complete criminal history of any fleeing criminal before deciding to give chase. But we don't live in a perfect world. So the police should be able to use deadly force if necessary to stop a fleeing criminal. It is or should be their job to apprehend fleeing criminals. (Unless public safety in a high speed car chase is a consideration) Not play judge and jury as to whether or not they deserve to be apprehended.

I don't know who you are, but I am a 77-year old man with an MBA and JD. It is my opinion that you don't know as much as you think you do. I also believe you have a piss-poor attitude.

You said you didn't read what I posted. Fine, you have shown me you don't care to learn. I'm sure that others read every word.

You state that police should be able to shoot anyone who is trying to run away because, as you put it: “For one reason, if somebody is willing to flee from police, they are capable of anything.” I don't know where you came up with that idea and I must admit I have never heard that argument before. I probably never heard it before because others are not as intellectually shallow as you are. At any rate, you're dead wrong but in the end it doesn't matter. If you think that everyone who runs away from the police is capable of rape and murder no one can stop you from living with your delusion.

Finally, you seem to be saying that since the police do not know the complete history of the fleeing criminal they should be able to use deadly force without having to decide whether it is justified or not. What you say doesn't make sense. The police always know why they are trying to arrest someone. The reason for the arrest is what determines whether deadly force is allowed or not. Police should know that they can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon (rapist or murderer for example), but not to prevent the escape of someone who owes parking fines. I have a lot of problems with what you say. I'm just grateful as hell that you are not a cop.

The funny thing is that I agree with you that some laws suck. I do not agree with laws that punish most “consensual crimes” and I have encountered too many defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges who didn't know the law. But I am not going to discuss anything more with you because of your attitude.

You have the last word. I am done with this thread and with you.

 

[wherewoof]

You are new to this forum and there are two thing I want to tell you. First, there are a lot of posters here who are experts on many different subjects, including law. I have a Doctorate in law and so do others. Second, when someone disagrees with you they are not trying to prove they are better than you or smarter than you; rather they are trying to teach you something about a particular subject they know more about than you do. I am certain that you know a lot more about a lot of things than I do, but because of my education and legal practice I propose I know more about the law than you.

In response to your article, generally, the police have no right to shot a suspect who is fleeing to avoid arrest. There is an exception only for those suspects who are consider dangerous felons, defined as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death. In the case of Tennessee v. Garner 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.

CONCLUSION A policeman can use deadly force if – at the time such force is used - the policeman has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or an innocent third party; however, once the threat no longer exists the use of deadly force must cease. A policeman cannot use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless the suspect is considered to be a dangerous felon; nor can a policeman use deadly force to effectuate an arrest unless the suspect has committed a crime using deadly force.

I believe you are referring to the case involving officer Michael Slager and Walter Scottt. 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. The question is: did Slager have the right to use deadly force to prevent Scott's escape? I contend he did not. The police can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if the suspect is a dangerous felon. This means that the suspect has either inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A minor scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. The attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is considered safe (many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like) and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed.

A federal grand jury apparently agreed with my assessment and Officer Slager was indicted on May 11, 2016. According to the following link, “The federal grand jury's indictment charged Slager with deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and obstruction of justice.

Walter Scott shooting death: Grand jury indicts ex-officer - CNN.com

(Update: There was a hung jury in the Slager trial, one juror refusing to convict; however, there is no doubt Slager will be tried again unless he cops a plea.)

Thanks for telling me far more than I wanted to know. So excuse me for not reading it all. But I can tell you something I DO know about the law. And if you have a doctorate in the law, you should know it too. Which is that the "law" SUCKS! Why? Because those who created it suck! That aside, most laws are written for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. In fact, no matter what words are used to write any law, the law means what those in power choose to interpret it as meaning.

Take the law that says, "Innocent until proven guilty." If you are in jail awaiting to find out if you are innocent or not, those words are largely meaningless. Because innocent or guilty, the person would still be in jail.

But getting back on topic, "should" police have the right to shoot a fleeing criminal. I say they should. For one reason, if somebody is willing to flee from police, they are capable of anything.

Next, in a perfect world, the policeman should know before hand the complete criminal history of any fleeing criminal before deciding to give chase. But we don't live in a perfect world. So the police should be able to use deadly force if necessary to stop a fleeing criminal. It is or should be their job to apprehend fleeing criminals. (Unless public safety in a high speed car chase is a consideration) Not play judge and jury as to whether or not they deserve to be apprehended.

I don't know who you are, but I am a 77-year old man with an MBA and JD. It is my opinion that you don't know as much as you think you do. I also believe you have a piss-poor attitude.

You said you didn't read what I posted. Fine, you have shown me you don't care to learn. I'm sure that others read every word.

You state that police should be able to shoot anyone who is trying to run away because, as you put it: “For one reason, if somebody is willing to flee from police, they are capable of anything.” I don't know where you came up with that idea and I must admit I have never heard that argument before. I probably never heard it before because others are not as intellectually shallow as you are. At any rate, you're dead wrong but in the end it doesn't matter. If you think that everyone who runs away from the police is capable of rape and murder no one can stop you from living with your delusion.

Finally, you seem to be saying that since the police do not know the complete history of the fleeing criminal they should be able to use deadly force without having to decide whether it is justified or not. What you say doesn't make sense. The police always know why they are trying to arrest someone. The reason for the arrest is what determines whether deadly force is allowed or not. Police should know that they can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon (rapist or murderer for example), but not to prevent the escape of someone who owes parking fines. I have a lot of problems with what you say. I'm just grateful as hell that you are not a cop.

The funny thing is that I agree with you that some laws suck. I do not agree with laws that punish most “consensual crimes” and I have encountered too many defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges who didn't know the law. But I am not going to discuss anything more with you because of your attitude.

You have the last word. I am done with this thread and with you.

Run Away!!! Run Away!!!