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

[The Professor]

Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone.

Come on, you knew he was black. Whites can riot, carry semi automatics and the police will do nothing. But arm a young black with a cell phone or Skittles and Republicans will send tens of thousands to the killer's defense fund. Oh, look, his shirt has a hood. How many USMB Republicans will now say he was a thug who deserved what he got?

Stunning victory for Bundy family as all charges dismissed in 2014 standoff case

Remember Bundy? Threatening US Marshals? Armed with rifles?

Then let go.

Imagine if they had been black. It would have been a bloodbath.

You mean yet another dumbass criminal runs from cops, wins Darwin Award.

You're welcome in advance for the correction. Any time.

It's not illegal to run from cops.

You can't possibly be serious. Oh, wait, you really are and someone thanked your post indicated he/she agrees with you!

People who know nothing about the law (this includes you) should not offer their opinions on legal matters. There is always a danger that someone will take you seriously and will get into trouble relying on your advice. Now I have no idea where you got the silly notion that running away from the police to avoid arrest is not a crime. I think you just made it up, but in the event someone else give you this load of bullcrap you need to find better sources of information. Running away from the police can get you in a world of trouble. I have a doctorate in law and passed the Bar on my first attempt; however, you don't have to be a legal expert like me to know running away from the law can be a crime. A person of reasonable intelligence would have know this intuitively.

“The police power to detain and arrest suspects is fairly broad, with a few general limitations. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they may attempt to arrest you, and evading that arrest may be a crime in and of itself.

“Depending on the circumstances and the state statute involved, the penalties for resisting or evading arrest can be severe. Here's a look at some general principles when it comes to running from police, and the possible consequences.”

Penalty for Running From the Police

Since the case being discussed occurred in California, perhaps a we should get advice from someone who practices law in that state:

“Evading arrest is a serious and punishable crime that violates California Vehicle Code 2800.1. The state of California defines evading arrest as the act of attempting or actively running away from a police officer that has made clear his or her intentions to arrest you. Whether the individual is fleeing by foot or by car, it is unlawful to evade a police officer's right to arrest. Although law enforcement officers may believe that an individual is evading arrest, it may not be the intention of the individual in question.

“Many factors can influence the outcome of such a charge. Was the police officer in full uniform at the time of the arrest? Were there language barriers that made the arrest attempt unclear? In the case of a car chase, was the individual not aware that police vehicles were trying to pull the individual over? Were the visual or audible signals coming from the police vehicles not understood by the person being pursued? Let an experienced Los Angeles criminal attorney from our firm analyze every factor of your arrest.”

Request Rejected

Note, although fleeing the police on foot or in a vehicle in California is a misdemeanor, putting others in danger wile driving a car can be a felony. In other states, merely using a vehicle to evade detention is a felony (see first link above).

Conclusion: A warning to all of you: IM2 says it is not a crime to run away from the police. He (or she, as the case may be) is clearly wrong. If you are running away from the police, the severity of the punishment depends on both the jurisdiction and the type of evasion. It could be either a misdemeanor or a felony, so i suggest each of you check the laws in your own states.

Now that everyone understands that running away from the police is a crime, there are a few more things to discuss. The first thing concerns when police may use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping. The controlling case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In that case, the SCOTUS opined that deadly force could not be used against all fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force can be used only against dangerous felons described as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The only crime young Clark was accused of was trying to break into unoccupied vehicles. That does not make him a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. Had the police shot Clark to prevent his escape, as some posters think they did, they would have been guilty of murder (remember Michael Slager and Walter Scott?).

Finally, the fact that the young man was unarmed is not conclusive evidence of police misconduct. Every jurisdiction allows the Police to use deadly force when they reasonably believe that – at the time such force is used – it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to themselves or innocent third parties. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that they reasonably believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter for a jury to decide using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury must determine – given all the attendant circumstances existing at the time – whether the police reasonably believed the device in Clark's hand was a gun.

OK, gang. I have done my best to tell you what the law really says, as opposed to what some of you who have no legal training whatsoever think it says. I said what I wanted to and I am outta here. Fight nice.

 

[protectionist]

You can't possibly be serious. Oh, wait, you really are and someone thanked your post indicated he/she agrees with you!

People who know nothing about the law (this includes you) should not offer their opinions on legal matters. There is always a danger that someone will take you seriously and will get into trouble relying on your advice. Now I have no idea where you got the silly notion that running away from the police is not a crime. I think you just made it up, but in the event someone else give you this load of bullcrap you need to find better sources of information. Running away from the police can get you in a world of trouble. I have a doctorate in law and passed the Bar on my first attempt; however, you don't have to be a legal expert like me to know running away from the law can be a crime. A person of reasonable intelligence would have know this intuitively.

“The police power to detain and arrest suspects is fairly broad, with a few general limitations. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they may attempt to arrest you, and evading that arrest may be a crime in and of itself.

“Depending on the circumstances and the state statute involved, the penalties for resisting or evading arrest can be severe. Here's a look at some general principles when it comes to running from police, and the possible consequences.”

Penalty for Running From the Police

Since the case being discussed occurred in California, perhaps a we should get advice from someone who practices law in that state:

“Evading arrest is a serious and punishable crime that violates California Vehicle Code 2800.1. The state of California defines evading arrest as the act of attempting or actively running away from a police officer that has made clear his or her intentions to arrest you. Whether the individual is fleeing by foot or by car, it is unlawful to evade a police officer's right to arrest. Although law enforcement officers may believe that an individual is evading arrest, it may not be the intention of the individual in question.

“Many factors can influence the outcome of such a charge. Was the police officer in full uniform at the time of the arrest? Were there language barriers that made the arrest attempt unclear? In the case of a car chase, was the individual not aware that police vehicles were trying to pull the individual over? Were the visual or audible signals coming from the police vehicles not understood by the person being pursued? Let an experienced Los Angeles criminal attorney from our firm analyze every factor of your arrest.”

Request Rejected

Note, although fleeing the police on foot or in a vehicle in California is a misdemeanor, putting others in danger wile driving a car can be a felony. In other states, merely using a vehicle to evade detention is a felony (see first link above).

Conclusion: A warning to all of you: IM2 says it is not a crime to run away from the police. He (or she, as the case may be) is clearly wrong. If you are running away from the police, the severity of the punishment depends on both the jurisdiction and the type of evasion. It could be either a misdemeanor or a felony, so i suggest each of you check the laws in your own states.

Now that everyone understands that running away from the police is a crime, there are a few more things to discuss. The first thing concerns when police may use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping. The controlling case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In that case, the SCOTUS opined that deadly force could not be used against all fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force can be used only against dangerous felons described as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The only crime young Clark was accused of was trying to break into unoccupied vehicles. That does not make him a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. Had the police shot Clark to prevent his escape, as some posters think they did, they would have been guilty of murder (remember Michael Slager and Walter Scott?).

Finally, the fact that the young man was unarmed is not conclusive evidence of police misconduct. Every jurisdiction allows the Police to use deadly force when they reasonably believe that – at the time such force is used – it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to themselves or innocent third parties. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that they reasonably believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter for a jury to decide using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury must determine – given all the attendant circumstances existing at the time – whether the police reasonably believed the device in Clark's hand was a gun.

OK, gang. I have done my best to tell you what the law really says, as opposed to what some of you who have no legal training whatsoever think it says. I said what I wanted to and I am outta here. Fight nice.

Thank you. I have told them all this stuff repeatedly, and they still come back with jibberish. I've gone on to other threads >>

 

[The Professor]

You can't possibly be serious. Oh, wait, you really are and someone thanked your post indicated he/she agrees with you!

People who know nothing about the law (this includes you) should not offer their opinions on legal matters. There is always a danger that someone will take you seriously and will get into trouble relying on your advice. Now I have no idea where you got the silly notion that running away from the police is not a crime. I think you just made it up, but in the event someone else give you this load of bullcrap you need to find better sources of information. Running away from the police can get you in a world of trouble. I have a doctorate in law and passed the Bar on my first attempt; however, you don't have to be a legal expert like me to know running away from the law can be a crime. A person of reasonable intelligence would have know this intuitively.

“The police power to detain and arrest suspects is fairly broad, with a few general limitations. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they may attempt to arrest you, and evading that arrest may be a crime in and of itself.

“Depending on the circumstances and the state statute involved, the penalties for resisting or evading arrest can be severe. Here's a look at some general principles when it comes to running from police, and the possible consequences.”

Penalty for Running From the Police

Since the case being discussed occurred in California, perhaps a we should get advice from someone who practices law in that state:

“Evading arrest is a serious and punishable crime that violates California Vehicle Code 2800.1. The state of California defines evading arrest as the act of attempting or actively running away from a police officer that has made clear his or her intentions to arrest you. Whether the individual is fleeing by foot or by car, it is unlawful to evade a police officer's right to arrest. Although law enforcement officers may believe that an individual is evading arrest, it may not be the intention of the individual in question.

“Many factors can influence the outcome of such a charge. Was the police officer in full uniform at the time of the arrest? Were there language barriers that made the arrest attempt unclear? In the case of a car chase, was the individual not aware that police vehicles were trying to pull the individual over? Were the visual or audible signals coming from the police vehicles not understood by the person being pursued? Let an experienced Los Angeles criminal attorney from our firm analyze every factor of your arrest.”

Request Rejected

Note, although fleeing the police on foot or in a vehicle in California is a misdemeanor, putting others in danger wile driving a car can be a felony. In other states, merely using a vehicle to evade detention is a felony (see first link above).

Conclusion: A warning to all of you: IM2 says it is not a crime to run away from the police. He (or she, as the case may be) is clearly wrong. If you are running away from the police, the severity of the punishment depends on both the jurisdiction and the type of evasion. It could be either a misdemeanor or a felony, so i suggest each of you check the laws in your own states.

Now that everyone understands that running away from the police is a crime, there are a few more things to discuss. The first thing concerns when police may use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping. The controlling case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In that case, the SCOTUS opined that deadly force could not be used against all fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force can be used only against dangerous felons described as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The only crime young Clark was accused of was trying to break into unoccupied vehicles. That does not make him a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. Had the police shot Clark to prevent his escape, as some posters think they did, they would have been guilty of murder (remember Michael Slager and Walter Scott?).

Finally, the fact that the young man was unarmed is not conclusive evidence of police misconduct. Every jurisdiction allows the Police to use deadly force when they reasonably believe that – at the time such force is used – it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to themselves or innocent third parties. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that they reasonably believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter for a jury to decide using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury must determine – given all the attendant circumstances existing at the time – whether the police reasonably believed the device in Clark's hand was a gun.

OK, gang. I have done my best to tell you what the law really says, as opposed to what some of you who have no legal training whatsoever think it says. I said what I wanted to and I am outta here. Fight nice.

Thank you. I have told them all this stuff repeatedly, and they still come back with jibberish. I've gone on to other threads >>

You've done a great job

You can't possibly be serious. Oh, wait, you really are and someone thanked your post indicated he/she agrees with you!

People who know nothing about the law (this includes you) should not offer their opinions on legal matters. There is always a danger that someone will take you seriously and will get into trouble relying on your advice. Now I have no idea where you got the silly notion that running away from the police is not a crime. I think you just made it up, but in the event someone else give you this load of bullcrap you need to find better sources of information. Running away from the police can get you in a world of trouble. I have a doctorate in law and passed the Bar on my first attempt; however, you don't have to be a legal expert like me to know running away from the law can be a crime. A person of reasonable intelligence would have know this intuitively.

“The police power to detain and arrest suspects is fairly broad, with a few general limitations. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they may attempt to arrest you, and evading that arrest may be a crime in and of itself.

“Depending on the circumstances and the state statute involved, the penalties for resisting or evading arrest can be severe. Here's a look at some general principles when it comes to running from police, and the possible consequences.”

Penalty for Running From the Police

Since the case being discussed occurred in California, perhaps a we should get advice from someone who practices law in that state:

“Evading arrest is a serious and punishable crime that violates California Vehicle Code 2800.1. The state of California defines evading arrest as the act of attempting or actively running away from a police officer that has made clear his or her intentions to arrest you. Whether the individual is fleeing by foot or by car, it is unlawful to evade a police officer's right to arrest. Although law enforcement officers may believe that an individual is evading arrest, it may not be the intention of the individual in question.

“Many factors can influence the outcome of such a charge. Was the police officer in full uniform at the time of the arrest? Were there language barriers that made the arrest attempt unclear? In the case of a car chase, was the individual not aware that police vehicles were trying to pull the individual over? Were the visual or audible signals coming from the police vehicles not understood by the person being pursued? Let an experienced Los Angeles criminal attorney from our firm analyze every factor of your arrest.”

Request Rejected

Note, although fleeing the police on foot or in a vehicle in California is a misdemeanor, putting others in danger wile driving a car can be a felony. In other states, merely using a vehicle to evade detention is a felony (see first link above).

Conclusion: A warning to all of you: IM2 says it is not a crime to run away from the police. He (or she, as the case may be) is clearly wrong. If you are running away from the police, the severity of the punishment depends on both the jurisdiction and the type of evasion. It could be either a misdemeanor or a felony, so i suggest each of you check the laws in your own states.

Now that everyone understands that running away from the police is a crime, there are a few more things to discuss. The first thing concerns when police may use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping. The controlling case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In that case, the SCOTUS opined that deadly force could not be used against all fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force can be used only against dangerous felons described as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The only crime young Clark was accused of was trying to break into unoccupied vehicles. That does not make him a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. Had the police shot Clark to prevent his escape, as some posters think they did, they would have been guilty of murder (remember Michael Slager and Walter Scott?).

Finally, the fact that the young man was unarmed is not conclusive evidence of police misconduct. Every jurisdiction allows the Police to use deadly force when they reasonably believe that – at the time such force is used – it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to themselves or innocent third parties. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that they reasonably believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter for a jury to decide using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury must determine – given all the attendant circumstances existing at the time – whether the police reasonably believed the device in Clark's hand was a gun.

OK, gang. I have done my best to tell you what the law really says, as opposed to what some of you who have no legal training whatsoever think it says. I said what I wanted to and I am outta here. Fight nice.

Thank you. I have told them all this stuff repeatedly, and they still come back with jibberish. I've gone on to other threads >>

You've done a great job. I enjoyed your posts. I'm sure you have caused others to change their view of things. Unfortunately, some people do not want to hear the truth.

 

[IM2]

o

Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone.

Come on, you knew he was black. Whites can riot, carry semi automatics and the police will do nothing. But arm a young black with a cell phone or Skittles and Republicans will send tens of thousands to the killer's defense fund. Oh, look, his shirt has a hood. How many USMB Republicans will now say he was a thug who deserved what he got?

Stunning victory for Bundy family as all charges dismissed in 2014 standoff case

Remember Bundy? Threatening US Marshals? Armed with rifles?

Then let go.

Imagine if they had been black. It would have been a bloodbath.

You mean yet another dumbass criminal runs from cops, wins Darwin Award.

You're welcome in advance for the correction. Any time.

It's not illegal to run from cops.

You can't possibly be serious. Oh, wait, you really are and someone thanked your post indicated he/she agrees with you!

People who know nothing about the law (this includes you) should not offer their opinions on legal matters. There is always a danger that someone will take you seriously and will get into trouble relying on your advice. Now I have no idea where you got the silly notion that running away from the police to avoid arrest is not a crime. I think you just made it up, but in the event someone else give you this load of bullcrap you need to find better sources of information. Running away from the police can get you in a world of trouble. I have a doctorate in law and passed the Bar on my first attempt; however, you don't have to be a legal expert like me to know running away from the law can be a crime. A person of reasonable intelligence would have know this intuitively.

“The police power to detain and arrest suspects is fairly broad, with a few general limitations. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they may attempt to arrest you, and evading that arrest may be a crime in and of itself.

“Depending on the circumstances and the state statute involved, the penalties for resisting or evading arrest can be severe. Here's a look at some general principles when it comes to running from police, and the possible consequences.”

Penalty for Running From the Police

Since the case being discussed occurred in California, perhaps a we should get advice from someone who practices law in that state:

“Evading arrest is a serious and punishable crime that violates California Vehicle Code 2800.1. The state of California defines evading arrest as the act of attempting or actively running away from a police officer that has made clear his or her intentions to arrest you. Whether the individual is fleeing by foot or by car, it is unlawful to evade a police officer's right to arrest. Although law enforcement officers may believe that an individual is evading arrest, it may not be the intention of the individual in question.

“Many factors can influence the outcome of such a charge. Was the police officer in full uniform at the time of the arrest? Were there language barriers that made the arrest attempt unclear? In the case of a car chase, was the individual not aware that police vehicles were trying to pull the individual over? Were the visual or audible signals coming from the police vehicles not understood by the person being pursued? Let an experienced Los Angeles criminal attorney from our firm analyze every factor of your arrest.”

Request Rejected

Note, although fleeing the police on foot or in a vehicle in California is a misdemeanor, putting others in danger wile driving a car can be a felony. In other states, merely using a vehicle to evade detention is a felony (see first link above).

Conclusion: A warning to all of you: IM2 says it is not a crime to run away from the police. He (or she, as the case may be) is clearly wrong. If you are running away from the police, the severity of the punishment depends on both the jurisdiction and the type of evasion. It could be either a misdemeanor or a felony, so i suggest each of you check the laws in your own states.

Now that everyone understands that running away from the police is a crime, there are a few more things to discuss. The first thing concerns when police may use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping. The controlling case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In that case, the SCOTUS opined that deadly force could not be used against all fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force can be used only against dangerous felons described as those who have inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The only crime young Clark was accused of was trying to break into unoccupied vehicles. That does not make him a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. Had the police shot Clark to prevent his escape, as some posters think they did, they would have been guilty of murder (remember Michael Slager and Walter Scott?).

Finally, the fact that the young man was unarmed is not conclusive evidence of police misconduct. Every jurisdiction allows the Police to use deadly force when they reasonably believe that – at the time such force is used – it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to themselves or innocent third parties. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that they reasonably believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter for a jury to decide using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury must determine – given all the attendant circumstances existing at the time – whether the police reasonably believed the device in Clark's hand was a gun.

OK, gang. I have done my best to tell you what the law really says, as opposed to what some of you who have no legal training whatsoever think it says. I said what I wanted to and I am outta here. Fight nice.

Unfortunately for you, I did learn laws pertaining to several areas, including civil rights. You went to law school and graduated just as stupid as you were when you entered.. The use of the fleeing felon rule didn't apply in this case. That's my point and your trying to argue to justify the use of deadly force by police just because a person runs shows why having people like you in the legal system is a problem. Unfortunately for you as a right wing extremist practicing law is the number of police shows on TV. I've watched countless chases where police didn't have to kill unarmed citizens. So take your post and stick it up your bum because it does not reflect anything but your opinion as to why this guy needed to be killed. We all know the police have the authority to kill when their lives are in danger, don't need some idiot practicing law to tell us that. We also know they get to do so upon their discretion whether the threat be real or not. We don't need a right wing dunce cap to explain that either, Since you know so much about the law why not notice this is a problem, police imagining a threat that's not there and police killing people because they "imagine'. Last you know good and damn well "I felt threatened" is a common excuse and that Slager tried planting a taser on Scott to make it look like he posed a fucking threat and if not for the guy filming him doing it Slager would have got away with murder and idiots like you would be postiing up the silly crap you just posted.

 

[IM2]

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 >>

Yeah that sure looks like a gun to me.

 

[IM2]

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.

Cops have vilified themselves because of their actions.

 

[IM2]

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.

You're out of your G-d mind. For example Castle told the cops he had a gun in his car but was reaching for his license

 

[IM2]

I am glad they did not hit the Grandmother with stray bullets going through her back screen door. Or any possible children. Look at this;

Nationwide, police sh people in 2017.ot and killed nearly 1,000 people in 2017


Three years in a row police killed about 1,000 people, only 17 of those Black last year. ( Only those precints that submitted data.) Interesting, if this is the case, then they are shooting plenty of more Whites. White men would then have far, far more rights about this, and I wonder why we cannot hear their voice?

More than 5,000 people have been killed by police since May 1, 2013. Over the last 4 yeas police have killed over 1,000. 293 people have been killed by police this year so far and we haven't finished the third month. Police killed 1193 people in 2017 and more than 17 were black. And when we are discussing unarmed killings the number is disproportionately black. Now as you say you are a 62 year old man and have seen years of police brutality against blacks go unnoticed one must ask why you have decided to take this position. For you can get shot and are more likely to get shot by police than a 62 year old white man. If you don't think so, study the case of Kenneth Chamberlain.

Killed By Police - 2017 (1193)

 

[protectionist]

Unfortunately for you, I did learn laws pertaining to several areas, including civil rights. You went to law school and graduated just as stupid as you were when you entered.. The use of the fleeing felon rule didn't apply in this case. That's my point and your trying to argue to justify the use of deadly force by police just because a person runs shows why having people like you in the legal system is a problem. Unfortunately for you as a right wing extremist practicing law is the number of police shows on TV. I've watched countless chases where police didn't have to kill unarmed citizens. So take your post and stick it up your bum because it does not reflect anything but your opinion as to why this guy needed to be killed. We all know the police have the authority to kill when their lives are in danger, don't need some idiot practicing law to tell us that. We also know they get to do so upon their discretion whether the threat be real or not. We don't need a right wing dunce cap to explain that either, Since you know so much about the law why not notice this is a problem, police imagining a threat that's not there and police killing people because they "imagine'. Last you know good and damn well "I felt threatened" is a common excuse and that Slager tried planting a taser on Scott to make it look like he posed a fucking threat and if not for the guy filming him doing it Slager would have got away with murder and idiots like you would be postiing up the silly crap you just posted.

Slager did not murder anybody. He was fully justified in shooting Walter Scott by virtue of the Fleeing Felon Rule. His charge and arrest was entirely a political act done by N. Charleston city fathers to placate the black voting majority there.

Likewise, you are wrong on your attack against the professor. He knows what he's talking about. You are in the wrong, and you are only taking a position that you think you should for your "team". But this isn't football game.

 

[protectionist]

You're out of your G-d mind. For example Castle told the cops he had a gun in his car but was reaching for his license

Follow me on this, OK ? Joe Jones tells officer Bob Smith that he is reaching for his license. A 1/2 second later, a gun is quickly pulled, and fired. Office Smith dies at the scene. Joe Jones drives away. Case remains unsolved.
As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> "IT DOESN'T MATTER" what a suspect says. The suspect doesn't not control the confrontation, the cop does. And the cop has no reason to believe anything the suspect says > especially involving a disappearing hand. Get it ?

The suspect talking to the cop does not abrogate the disappearing hand rule. If your hand disappears, you die. Period.

Dumbass liberal school teachers.

 

[protectionist]

Cops have vilified themselves because of their actions.

A minute few maybe. So what ? A tiny % of people in any occupation vilify themselves, by their actions.

Regarding cops, the only people who think it is any more than this, is a bunch of dum dums who fall for the Obama/Sharpton/Jackson race hustlers ploy, simply designed to gin up votes for the Democrat in the 2016 election. Time is now for you to get your head out of the clouds.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah that sure looks like a gun to me.

It could in the dark, and from a few yards away. Also, the picture shows the phone with the light on. It only has that light on right after you close the flip top. Light is out 99.9 % of the time.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Lets just say I know from experience and I was on the right side of the badge.. How about YOU? What I say here is backed by actual hands on experience.

Your graphic example is pointless. If your tabloid is accurate, armed cops wouldn't have made a difference. In fact, gruesome murders happen here too; and, all an armed cop does is get there just in time to draw a chalk mark around the body. Given that post mortem fact, I can assume the end result consisted of an arrest for murder.

 

[protectionist]

More than 5,000 people have been killed by police since May 1, 2013. Over the last 4 yeas police have killed over 1,000. 293 people have been killed by police this year so far and we haven't finished the third month. Police killed 1193 people in 2017 and more than 17 were black. And when we are discussing unarmed killings the number is disproportionately black. Now as you say you are a 62 year old man and have seen years of police brutality against blacks go unnoticed one must ask why you have decided to take this position. For you can get shot and are more likely to get shot by police than a 62 year old white man. If you don't think so, study the case of Kenneth Chamberlain.

Killed By Police - 2017 (1193)

This link you supplied looks like it was concocted by some kid in the 8th grade. All by himself.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

You were an armed security guard and you want to challenge ME on police procedure? Heh heh heh... you're a loon! You should have said stop talking TO stupid: the object of stupidity referring to YOU! Thats why you don't know that the first thing a cop does is identify himself as a cop, especially in the dark of night or when not in uniform. And that "Let me see your hands" line isn't a standard order when a suspect is in your sights. "Raise your hands above your head" or "get down on the ground with your hands in the small of your back are more common orders.

 

[impuretrash]

I am glad they did not hit the Grandmother with stray bullets going through her back screen door. Or any possible children. Look at this;

Nationwide, police sh people in 2017.ot and killed nearly 1,000 people in 2017


Three years in a row police killed about 1,000 people, only 17 of those Black last year. ( Only those precints that submitted data.) Interesting, if this is the case, then they are shooting plenty of more Whites. White men would then have far, far more rights about this, and I wonder why we cannot hear their voice?

More than 5,000 people have been killed by police since May 1, 2013. Over the last 4 yeas police have killed over 1,000. 293 people have been killed by police this year so far and we haven't finished the third month. Police killed 1193 people in 2017 and more than 17 were black. And when we are discussing unarmed killings the number is disproportionately black. Now as you say you are a 62 year old man and have seen years of police brutality against blacks go unnoticed one must ask why you have decided to take this position. For you can get shot and are more likely to get shot by police than a 62 year old white man. If you don't think so, study the case of Kenneth Chamberlain.

Killed By Police - 2017 (1193)

LOL 17 out of 1193? WOW someone call Al Sharpton, we have a racial crisis on our hands.

Oh and it's fucking RICH that mister "per capita doesn't matter" says "disproportionately black"

rates matter all of a sudden. Only when it advances your narrative, huh?

 

[protectionist]

Lets just say I know from experience and I was on the right side of the badge.. How about YOU? What I say here is backed by actual hands on experience.

Your graphic example is pointless. If your tabloid is accurate, armed cops wouldn't have made a difference. In fact, gruesome murders happen here too; and, all an armed cop does is get there just in time to draw a chalk mark around the body. Given that post mortem fact, I can assume the end result consisted of an arrest for murder.

So you're in favor of cops going around without guns, huh ? I suspect you're a criminal, and I wouldn't be surprised if you're posting from a prison cell, that you're due to be released from this year.

Cops without guns. Are you nuts ?

And if "all an armed cop does is get there just in time to draw a chalk mark around the body", then the prisons would be empty, wouldn't they ?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone.

Come on, you knew he was black. Whites can riot, carry semi automatics and the police will do nothing. But arm a young black with a cell phone or Skittles and Republicans will send tens of thousands to the killer's defense fund. Oh, look, his shirt has a hood. How many USMB Republicans will now say he was a thug who deserved what he got?

Stunning victory for Bundy family as all charges dismissed in 2014 standoff case

Remember Bundy? Threatening US Marshals? Armed with rifles?

Then let go.

Imagine if they had been black. It would have been a bloodbath.

I'm sure by now your ass sore over this stupid post.

 

[JQPublic1]

You're out of your G-d mind. For example Castle told the cops he had a gun in his car but was reaching for his license

Follow me on this, OK ? Joe Jones tells officer Bob Smith that he is reaching for his license. A 1/2 second later, a gun is quickly pulled, and fired. Office Smith dies at the scene. Joe Jones drives away. Case remains unsolved.
As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> "IT DOESN'T MATTER" what a suspect says. The suspect doesn't not control the confrontation, the cop does. And the cop has no reason to believe anything the suspect says > especially involving a disappearing hand. Get it ?

The suspect talking to the cop does not abrogate the disappearing hand rule. If your hand disappears, you die. Period.

Dumbass liberal school teachers.

But Joe Jones doesn't tell the officer he has a CCW and a weapon in the car you idiot! And he doesn't have his family with him... You stupid dolt!

 

[protectionist]

You were an armed security guard and you want to challenge ME on police procedure? Heh heh heh... you're a loon! You should have said stop talking TO stupid: the object of stupidity referring to YOU! Thats why you don't know that the first thing a cop does is identify himself as a cop, especially in the dark of night or when not in uniform. And that "Let me see your hands" line isn't a standard order when a suspect is in your sights. "Raise your hands above your head" or "get down on the ground with your hands in the small of your back are more common orders.

When it comes to confronting a bad guy, police and security guards are no different. If you allow the guy to reach into his jacket, or a car window, a second later, you could be dead. Simple as that.

The last job I worked on, had 2 guys who were ex-cops. They thought they were better than the guards. They were clueless on security. Security and police are 2 different jobs. One is a responder (the cop) who rides around mobile in a car, and doesn't know too much about any particular site. The other is a defender (guard), who stays stationary at one site, and gets to know every nook and cranny of it over the years.

The ex-cops were so bad (and thought they were great), they both wound up getting fired. Neither one even lasted 3 months.

And the phrase "Let me see your hands" is the very common order. You can hear them saying it on the dash recordings shown on the Justice Channel and Escape Channel, constantly. Maybe you just weren't doing your job quite right.