Man standing in his own back yard shot 20 times by police. He was armed with a cell phone.

[protectionist]

Philando Castile was stopped hundreds of times for driving while black. He was actually being harassed. Finally, one asshole killed him BTW The officer has to get up to the widow of the car to check your paperwork and issue a warning or citation. So that 21 foot crap doesn't work in traffic stops. And most of the cop shootings we witnessed in 2017 did not show the suspect approaching cops..

You are a damn fool if you believe there is no such thing as an unarmed man. Only a deranged psychopath would think like that. If a cop goes to work with that attitude, anyone he comes across is subject to being shot for no reason other than the cop thought he or she was armed because someone told him there is no such thing as an unarmed man.

Use of force against a fleeing felon depends on what the felony is and how much of a danger the felon poses to the public at large. Did you miss this part of your link:

"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly 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 bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit[4]." Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule."

There is no "if" here. A cop DOES go to work with "that attitude" as you call it. It is the understanding that at any time he could be shot by the suspect in a fraction of a second. This is why cops always say "Let me see your hands" if they don't already see them)

Of course there is no such thing as an unarmed man, and you are a fool if you think there is. Lots of things could be used as a deadly weapon > a gun or knife not immediately visible to the cop, a ballpoint pen, a belt, a rock picked up off the ground, a cigarette lighter, etc etc, and also the cop's own gun if the suspect were to wrestle it away from him.

As for "anyone he comes across is subject to being shot, absolutely they are. As I've been saying 1000 times, if you don't have your hands visible to the cop (and empty), then YES, you are subject to being shot. And the reason why you don't know this, is because our Miseducation system in America is run by liberals who are pathetically ignorant about guns and law enforcement.

Your post hasn't told me anything I didn't already know. In fact. I posted all this stuff about Tennessee vs Garner, years ago here in USMB. And none f what you posted is in disagreement with anything I've said.

And the cop who killed Philando Castille was an "asshole" You are, for calling him that. Philando Castille, like other undereducated unfortunates, reached into his jacket, allowing his hand to disappear from view. If Castille had a gun, and intended to shoot the cop, he could have done that in a fraction is a second.

So what do you think cops should do ? Gamble with their lives every time some dum dum reaches into his jacket ?... or into his car ? like Terrence Crutcher, who was shot dead by Betty Crutcher. No they're not going to gamble with their lives that way. It's up to the suspect to know how to conduct himself, in the presence of a cop. Now, you know how to do that. You're welcome.

 

[protectionist]

Davids Shavers and Philandro Castile obeyed the goddamn law law and still were murdered by cops. One was White and one was Black...

Nonsense. Both shootings were 100% justifiable. In both cases, the dead guy caused his own demise, by allowing his hands to disappear from view of the cop.

Blame your airhead liberal school teachers for not teaching you this.

 

[protectionist]

The American MISeducation system failed the officer who shot Shavers. Hundreds, if not thousands of incidents similar to this one occur each day and most don't end in death. The cop, Phillip Brailsford, was a psychopath who seemed to enjoy torturing his victim. He could have had the subject get on his knees with his back to the officer and with his hands placed on top of his had. Instead Brailsford acted like a bully and took a father and husband from his family forever.

1. Whatever the officer did, apart from the shooting, is another subject, if the cop tormented the guy, he shouldn't have, and if that was the case, his dept should take the proper action against him. As for the shooting part, the cop was justified, since Shaver made the big mistake of putting his hands behind his back, and out of view from the cop. If Shavers had a gun in his back pocket, or holstered behind him, he could have shot the cop in a 1/2 second.

2. No reason to expect the cop to take the chance of being shot. People need to know how to act. MISeducation system got another guy killed.

 

[protectionist]

It's not illegal to run from cops.

FALSE!

1. Resisting arrest.

2. Obstructing justice.

 

[toobfreak]

Davids Shavers and Philandro Castile obeyed the goddamn law law and still were murdered by cops. One was White and one was Black...

Nonsense. Both shootings were 100% justifiable. In both cases, the dead guy caused his own demise, by allowing his hands to disappear from view of the cop.

Blame your airhead liberal school teachers for not teaching you this.

Look, cops are not perfect, there is much I'd like to see changed, but the world has made them that way. The days of Andy Griffith are gone and when a cop tells you to do something, you ought to follow his direction and make both your days a lot easier. There is a movement to vilify the police and make them a social pariah and it started right at the top with Barack Obama and Eric Holder. It goes hand and hand with the general attack on guns, defense and authority. I've yet to meet a cop that if dealt with fairly and respectfully did not return in kind. They have a hard job that I couldn't do and whether people believe it or not, are there for the public good.

 

[Slimdugger99]

Many conservative radicals have armed themselves to not only fight with cops if necessary they are prepared to fight federal troops too. Does your advice extend to fellow exremists?

On a more personal note,there are some cops who are so obssessed with their power they can and do provoke people into confrontations. Usually the cop has the advantage and comes out on top, but , sometimes that kind of cop doesn't survive.
Some people are just not going to be harrassed and fucked with for no damn good reason whether armed or not.
But it is quite telling that a common theme among you well armed conservative is the notion that an unarmed person who fights with an overbearing asshole hiding behind a badge, or a person who runs from cops deserves to be shot. If you believe that you're a fucking NAZI. Thousands of people have fought with cops, run away and even exchanged gunfire with cops yet were arrested without being murdered. Most cops are not shooting unarmed people with such disdain and impunity as those who shot Stephon Clark, even under similar circumstances.
Lastly, I gave you a link to review pertaining to .a pedestrian being shot after being targeted by an asshole in blue and falsely charged for jaywalking . The pedestrian, knowing he had done nothing amiss, simply asked the officer why he stopped him. Having no viable explanation, the cop escalated the confrontation : that being his intent from the onset for reasons known only to himself. This time the weapon of choice was a taser. But tasers can be deadly too. Scores of people are killed by tasers each year.

There is no such thing as an "unarmed man"

ANYONE with an adversarial tone, who is moving toward you, and is already within the standard 21 foot danger zone, is a lethal threat to you. If they continue coming at you after being warned to stay back, they should be self-defense shot.

No Such Thing As An “UNARMED MAN”

Anyone who would call this being a "NAZI", is an obvious casualty of the liberal mind-propaganda, that stems from the typical ignorance of cops and guns.

As for felons who are running away, they can be shot (in the back of course), and police actually violate their protocol, if they don't shoot (and allow suspect to escape)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Actually the fleeing felon rule does not apply in his case.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly 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 bodily harm to the officer or others."

No such threat existed in his case.

Your OP does not set any legal precedent for what an unarmed man is either. If a cop is scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away that officer needs to find another job.

You guys need to teach your children to obey the goddamn law if they don't wanna get shot.

No, that's not the problem. Believe it or not we do have rights and the police do violate our rights on damn near every stop.

Thank god you don’t make the rules of engagement police operate under. According to you, police have no objective limitations on whatever force they choose to employ in a given situation and no matter how egregious his actions, he could always claim he perceived a threat. No community in their right minds would agree to be policed under such a regime. Police could never be held accountable for their actions. Anyone advocating this kind of a police tyranny is a fascist nut and should occupy a rubber room somewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[protectionist]

Yeah ...keep your black hands visible even in the dark of night.

That's right. Cops were able to see something in his hand, about the size of a gun. It was light enough for that.

So what's YOUR solution ? For cops to let the ones who HAVE a gun to shoot them ? Cops who have hesitated have been shot and killed.

The cops were observing the suspect from behind the corner of a building. Further, shouting "Let me see your hands" was just pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams. And cell phones look nothing like guns.

1. "Let me see your hands" is certainly "NOT "pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams". Rarely, have I ever heard anything dumber than that. The warning is the difference between being shot, and not being shot. You better know that if/whenever you get confronted by a cop.

2. A cell phone could indeed look like a gun, especially from a distance, and in dim light. Here's a picture of the one I carry around >>

 

[protectionist]

Thank god you don’t make the rules of engagement police operate under. According to you, police have no objective limitations on whatever force they choose to employ in a given situation and no matter how egregious his actions, he could always claim he perceived a threat. No community in their right minds would agree to be policed under such a regime. Police could never be held accountable for their actions. Anyone advocating this kind of a police tyranny is a fascist nut and should occupy a rubber room somewhere.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I haven't seen anybody in this thread advocate or accepting what you are bitching about here.

 

[Slimdugger99]

Thank god you don’t make the rules of engagement police operate under. According to you, police have no objective limitations on whatever force they choose to employ in a given situation and no matter how egregious his actions, he could always claim he perceived a threat. No community in their right minds would agree to be policed under such a regime. Police could never be held accountable for their actions. Anyone advocating this kind of a police tyranny is a fascist nut and should occupy a rubber room somewhere.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I haven't seen anybody in this thread advocate or accepting what you are bitching about here.

I’m talking to you, protectionist. The one who thinks armed and armored cops can operate under their own set of rules and biased perceptions and when they make lethal mistakes, walk away immune from their actions. You have a whole lot of blame for unarmed victims and a mile long list of what to do and not do, for victims but none for the cops. We all know what’s uppermost on the cops list, black males are my enemy, shoot first, shoot again, reload, shoot again. Make up story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JQPublic1]

Davids Shavers and Philandro Castile obeyed the goddamn law law and still were murdered by cops. One was White and one was Black...

Yep and I think what happened to Castile was tragic, but I don't think it was motivated by racism.

Castile was murdered and the killer cop walked. Racism might have played a part in that. We would know if the officers background was revealed publicly as readily as their victims back ground is.

 

[protectionist]

I’m talking to you, protectionist. The one who thinks armed and armored cops can operate under their own set of rules and biased perceptions and when they make lethal mistakes, walk away immune from their actions. You have a whole lot of blame for unarmed victims and a mile long list of what to do and not do, for victims but none for the cops. We all know what’s uppermost on the cops list, black males are my enemy, shoot first, shoot again, reload, shoot again. Make up story.

Dummy. I don't think cops can operate under their own set of rules, and I never said that. The only blame I really place (as I've said twice..or is it 3 times now) is on our MISeducation system, full of empty-headed liberals (when it comes to guns & cops).

And my "list" consists of 2 things primarily. Keep your hands visible, and empty. Also cops shouldn't pay any attention to racist like you're spouting. Obama/Sharpton/Jackson race hustlers mouth off BS. You fall for it. I can see they've got YOU programmed all right.

EARTH TO SLIMDUGGER: They were just trying to gin up votes for Hillary in the 2016 election. You can now re-enter the real world.

 

[protectionist]

Castile was murdered and the killer cop walked. Racism might have played a part in that. We would know if the officers background was revealed publicly as readily as their victims back ground is.

At this point (since I've already explained the hands visible rule), you have no excuse to be spouting idiocy. Castille shouldn't have reached into his jacket. And airhead liberal schoolteachers should have taught him that.
Racism had no part. Stop talking stupid.

 

[Slimdugger99]

Castile was murdered and the killer cop walked. Racism might have played a part in that. We would know if the officers background was revealed publicly as readily as their victims back ground is.

At this point (since I've already explained the hands visible rule), you have no excuse to be spouting idiocy. Castille shouldn't have reached into his jacket. And airhead liberal schoolteachers should have taught him that.
Racism had no part. Stop talking stupid.

Since when are you the rules arbiter? Assholes like you always arrogate unto themselves this position of superiority where they get to decide what rules apply and to whom. You need to shut up, no ones listening to your practiced racism. Before hiring a policeman, departments need to screen recruits for the kinds of latent and overt racism you display.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JQPublic1]

Philando Castile was stopped hundreds of times for driving while black. He was actually being harassed. Finally, one asshole killed him BTW The officer has to get up to the widow of the car to check your paperwork and issue a warning or citation. So that 21 foot crap doesn't work in traffic stops. And most of the cop shootings we witnessed in 2017 did not show the suspect approaching cops..

You are a damn fool if you believe there is no such thing as an unarmed man. Only a deranged psychopath would think like that. If a cop goes to work with that attitude, anyone he comes across is subject to being shot for no reason other than the cop thought he or she was armed because someone told him there is no such thing as an unarmed man.

Use of force against a fleeing felon depends on what the felony is and how much of a danger the felon poses to the public at large. Did you miss this part of your link:

"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly 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 bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit[4]." Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule."

There is no "if" here. A cop DOES go to work with "that attitude" as you call it. It is the understanding that at any time he could be shot by the suspect in a fraction of a second. This is why cops always say "Let me see your hands" if they don't already see them)

Of course there is no such thing as an unarmed man, and you are a fool if you think there is. Lots of things could be used as a deadly weapon > a gun or knife not immediately visible to the cop, a ballpoint pen, a belt, a rock picked up off the ground, a cigarette lighter, etc etc, and also the cop's own gun if the suspect were to wrestle it away from him.

As for "anyone he comes across is subject to being shot, absolutely they are. As I've been saying 1000 times, if you don't have your hands visible to the cop (and empty), then YES, you are subject to being shot. And the reason why you don't know this, is because our Miseducation system in America is run by liberals who are pathetically ignorant about guns and law enforcement.

Your post hasn't told me anything I didn't already know. In fact. I posted all this stuff about Tennessee vs Garner, years ago here in USMB. And none f what you posted is in disagreement with anything I've said.

And the cop who killed Philando Castille was an "asshole" You are, for calling him that. Philando Castille, like other undereducated unfortunates, reached into his jacket, allowing his hand to disappear from view. If Castille had a gun, and intended to shoot the cop, he could have done that in a fraction is a second.

So what do you think cops should do ? Gamble with their lives every time some dum dum reaches into his jacket ?... or into his car ? like Terrence Crutcher, who was shot dead by Betty Crutcher. No they're not going to gamble with their lives that way. It's up to the suspect to know how to conduct himself, in the presence of a cop. Now, you know how to do that. You're welcome.

I've already pointed out that cops interact with thousands of "miseducated" people who don't show their hands, some of whom get in to fights with cops; but, most cops manage to make an arrest without shooting them. That seems to be general rule among cops. Otherwise every dope head, every drunk, and every deranged person cops confront daily would be shot. The death count would reach tens of thousands monthly. See how ridiculous you are?

I invite you to take a look at the cops in Britain to put a bigger dent in the faulty notion that there is no such thing as an unarmed man. All the potential weapons you named above are just as readily available in Britain but the cops there go about their duties carrying nothing more than a nightstick and a whistle. Notice I didn't say the British Bobbies are ARMED with nightsticks and whistles because the term "armed" in Britain is defined differently than it is here. The originators of the English language posit that you are armed only when carrying a firearm. The bastardized english American lexicon extends the definition to any physical object including hands and feet. Both extremities of which are central components in the art of UNARMED defense.

The bottom line is that no matter what definition you use, the risk of being killed or injured by something other than a firearm by is just as great or greater for British Bobbies as it is for Kelly the killer cop.. Yet, the British Bobbies remain unarmed and have been keeping law and order for more than a century.

I'm not going to get in to an exchange with a bigot like you over the Crutcher, Castile Clark murders et..al.. Your world view is skewed by prejudice and hate, just like the hand picked judges and juries who keep letting killer cops walk.

 

[JQPublic1]

Yeah ...keep your black hands visible even in the dark of night.

That's right. Cops were able to see something in his hand, about the size of a gun. It was light enough for that.

So what's YOUR solution ? For cops to let the ones who HAVE a gun to shoot them ? Cops who have hesitated have been shot and killed.

The cops were observing the suspect from behind the corner of a building. Further, shouting "Let me see your hands" was just pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams. And cell phones look nothing like guns.

1. "Let me see your hands" is certainly "NOT "pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams". Rarely, have I ever heard anything dumber than that. The warning is the difference between being shot, and not being shot. You better know that if/whenever you get confronted by a cop.

2. A cell phone could indeed look like a gun, especially from a distance, and in dim light. Here's a picture of the one I carry around >>

When I said"Let me see your hands" WAS "pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams", I was specifically talking about the Sacramento cops who shot Stephon Clark. Anyone who saw and listened to the video could get the impression that the cops had rehearsed what they would do and say when they found the suspect. Your lack of analytical skills are duly noted and relegated as one more nail in the coffin of your premise.

And you certainly didn't help your case by posting a picture of that archaic cell phone. It looks ore like a bullet than a gun.

 

[protectionist]

Since when are you the rules arbiter? Assholes like you always arrogate unto themselves this position of superiority where they get to decide what rules apply and to whom. You need to shut up, no ones listening to your practiced racism. Before hiring a policeman, departments need to screen recruits for the kinds of latent and overt racism you display.

You are the racist, because you're talking about race where there is no racial component involved. And you didn't answer my question about affirmative action. You support it ?

YOU are who needs to shut up. USMB doesn't need your racist BS.

I think I also asked > Should cops risk their lives by not shooting suspects with not visible hands ? Answer that. And if you say yes, then we'll have ti figure out if you;'re a criminal or not. Whose side are you on ?

 

[JQPublic1]

Castile was murdered and the killer cop walked. Racism might have played a part in that. We would know if the officers background was revealed publicly as readily as their victims back ground is.

At this point (since I've already explained the hands visible rule), you have no excuse to be spouting idiocy. Castille shouldn't have reached into his jacket. And airhead liberal schoolteachers should have taught him that.
Racism had no part. Stop talking stupid.

Have you ever been a cop? I have. If you haven't STFU...

 

[protectionist]

I've already pointed out that cops interact with thousands of "miseducated" people who don't show their hands, some of whom get in to fights with cops; but, most cops manage to make an arrest without shooting them. That seems to be general rule among cops. Otherwise every dope head, every drunk, and every deranged person cops confront daily would be shot. The death count would reach tens of thousands monthly. See how ridiculous you are?

I invite you to take a look at the cops in Britain to put a bigger dent in the faulty notion that there is no such thing as an unarmed man. All the potential weapons you named above are just as readily available in Britain but the cops there go about their duties carrying nothing more than a nightstick and a whistle. Notice I didn't say the British Bobbies are ARMED with nightsticks and whistles because the term "armed" in Britain is defined differently than it is here. The originators of the English language posit that you are armed only when carrying a firearm. The bastardized english American lexicon extends the definition to any physical object including hands and feet. Both extremities of which are central components in the art of UNARMED defense.

The bottom line is that no matter what definition you use, the risk of being killed or injured by something other than a firearm by is just as great or greater for British Bobbies as it is for Kelly the killer cop.. Yet, the British Bobbies remain unarmed and have been keeping law and order for more than a century.

I'm not going to get in to an exchange with a bigot like you over the Crutcher, Castile Clark murders et..al.. Your world view is skewed by prejudice and hate, just like the hand picked judges and juries who keep letting killer cops walk.

What I see is you making statements without a shred of evidence to support them. Cops interact with thousands of people who don't show their hands, and most of them don't shoot ? Yeah ? Who told you that ?

Governor Moonbeam ? Nancy Pelosi ? Or maybe the guy who delivers your mail.

As for the British cops, you condone them not carrying guns ? That's an invitation to criminal activity. Here's what comes as the result of such idiocy >>

You call this "law and order" ? I don't.

As for your moronic charges that I am bigoted, show one bit of proof of that. Go ahead. I challenge you.

 

[protectionist]

Have you ever been a cop? I have. If you haven't STFU...

I was in the National Guard, have been an armed security guard, and I currently carry a gun with a CCW license. That's more than enough. And anybody can comment in USMB - not just cops. Stop talking stupid.

 

[protectionist]

When I said"Let me see your hands" WAS "pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams", I was specifically talking about the Sacramento cops who shot Stephon Clark. Anyone who saw and listened to the video could get the impression that the cops had rehearsed what they would do and say when they found the suspect. Your lack of analytical skills are duly noted and relegated as one more nail in the coffin of your premise.

And you certainly didn't help your case by posting a picture of that archaic cell phone. It looks ore like a bullet than a gun.

It's not archaic at all. I have a smart phone too. Never use it.

And the cops will always say "Let me see your hands". They don't need to rehearse that. Stop talking stupid.