Now we got white women cops killing unarmed negros.....ww?????

[Theowl32]

Or negroes can stop resisting arrest and ignoring lawful commands by police.

The fact you keep referring to them as negroes is evidence of your racist bias, hence, your opinion is not to be taken seriously. You harbor a lot of hate in your heart for someone who pretends to be so religious.

Negros

 

[jillian]

Yet again, the negro was resisting and refusing to follow directions, as the helicopter pilot remarked in the video. The cop hater crowd yet again fails to produce a genuine victim of police brutality.

One thing is certain, those streets are safer now. Good riddance.

But whites don't get gunned down for the same thing.

This has nothing at all to do with "hating cops" and saying it does is just chicken shit cowardly.

But, being a "good christian" who is always braying about how perfect you are, not surprising that you lie about this too.

Bullshit. Whites get gunned down too, it's just ignored by the cop hater crowd because it doesn't fit their narrative.

no....young unarmed white men being shot by cops is not an endemic problem.

you might also stop using the term "negro" because it makes everything you say afterwards questionable...

you know....as in bigoted and ignorant.

 

[Theowl32]

Or negroes can stop resisting arrest and ignoring lawful commands by police.

The fact you keep referring to them as negroes is evidence of your racist bias, hence, your opinion is not to be taken seriously. You harbor a lot of hate in your heart for someone who pretends to be so religious.

 

[boedicca]

All this angst over a white female cop when hundreds of young black men have been killed by other young black men in Chicago alone this year.

 

[Zoom-boing]

But whites don't get gunned down for the same thing.

Liar.

 

[Theowl32]

All this angst over a white female cop when hundreds of young black men have been killed by other young black men in Chicago alone this year.

We have been bringing these facts up far too long. No point man. They will not hear this message. Just offend them any way you can. A lot more fun.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To date, there have been 782 people killed by police in 2016.

382 were white; 193 were black.

But you only hear about the blacks being killed.

That's racist.

The Counted: people killed by police in the United States – interactive

 

[Theowl32]

To date, there have been 782 people killed by police in 2016.

382 were white; 193 were black.

But you only hear about the blacks being killed.

That's racist.

The Counted: people killed by police in the United States – interactive

Won't matter one single bit. Trust me. Will not matter.

Do you also know that they think every single black person shot was unjustified?

They still think Micheal Brown was a gentle giant minding his own business for God's sake.

They still think OJ was framed.

I am hoping you have a keen understanding of the mentality you are dealing with.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I am hoping you have a keen understanding of the mentality you are dealing with.

Oh yes, I do know that they are mental! lol

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet again, the negro was resisting and refusing to follow directions, as the helicopter pilot remarked in the video. The cop hater crowd yet again fails to produce a genuine victim of police brutality.

One thing is certain, those streets are safer now. Good riddance.

But whites don't get gunned down for the same thing.

This has nothing at all to do with "hating cops" and saying it does is just chicken shit cowardly.

But, being a "good christian" who is always braying about how perfect you are, not surprising that you lie about this too.

Bullshit. Whites get gunned down too, it's just ignored by the cop hater crowd because it doesn't fit their narrative.

no....young unarmed white men being shot by cops is not an endemic problem.

you might also stop using the term "negro" because it makes everything you say afterwards questionable...

you know....as in bigoted and ignorant.

You're the second idiot to miss the thread title and the fact that the thread was set up as a racist thread by one of your fellow leftist "bigots", moron.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hands up, still shoot. But let's be fair, the helicopter guy said he looked like a bad dude and you can tell that from a birds Eye view. He saw his skin and just knew it.

 

[The Professor]

The fact that Mr. Cruther was uncooperative did not give the officer the right to use deadly force against him. Deadly force can be used to effect an arrest only in very limited situations.

“If the police officer had reason to believe that the suspect committed a felony involving the risk of physical harm or death to others such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape or burglary, he could use deadly force to effectuate an arrest. However, if the police officer was trying to apprehend a suspect who he reasonably believed had committed a victimless felony or a felony that involved no risk of physical harm to others, deadly force cannot be used.

“It is important to remember that a police officer is allowed to use force based on reasonable belief. Therefore, if a police officer reasonably believes that a suspect whom he is trying to arrest has committed a rape, the police officer may use deadly force, and that deadly force will be considered justified even if it turns out that the officer’s reasonable belief was wrong. See Bursack v. Davis, 225 N.W. 738 (Wis. 1929).

“The Model Penal Code follows the more modern view and allows the use of deadly force only in situations where the crime that the suspect is arrested for involved the use or threatened use of deadly force or if there is a substantial risk that the suspect would seriously harm or kill someone else if the arrest were delayed.”

Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest and to Prevent Crime

If all Mr. Crutcher did was try to get into is vehicle to drive away (unlikely since his vehicle was disabled), deadly force could not be used to prevent his escape. 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 considered 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.

Taking a life is a very serious matter and is only justified in extraordinary cases to prevent innocent people from suffering serious injury or death.

In one case previously discussed on this forum, 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 contendrf 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.

“The deprivation of rights charge is a death penalty offense, but the federal prosecutor's office has no interest in pursuing it, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Klumb said.”

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

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Reaching into the vehicle did.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We get it: NOTHING a cop does is over the line for you. A cop could rape a teenage girl on camera, shoot her in the back...and you would excuse it.

 

[tigerred59]

Its shameful.

I remember when there was real honor in NOT shooting an unarmed person and NOT shooting someone in the back.

But, blacks have always been gunned down by cops. The difference now is that we all have cameras.

And yet it continues to happen; apparently cameras aren't the answer. Heaven forbid negroes simply stop committing crimes, running from cops, fighting cops, disregarding instructions, and resisting arrest. I see no victim here.

And of course white people surrender...watch this if you want facts peacefully.......

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hell, the ******* terrorist was even shot in his leg and arm. The Terrorist!

 

[Anathema]

]But whites don't get gunned down for the same thing.

THAT is the issue. We need the cops gunning down ALL belligerent criminals.... not just ones of a certain race.

 

[ClosedCaption]

]But whites don't get gunned down for the same thing.

THAT is the issue. We need the cops gunning down ALL belligerent criminals.... not just ones of a certain race.

Belligerent criminal?

 

[The Professor]

Reaching into the vehicle did.

There were four officers on the scene and they couldn't subdue one man using non-deadly force –even though tasers were available? They could have rushed him but it seems they were afraid to do that and kept their distance. If they had used brute force against the man early on there was no real danger of death or serious bodily injury to anyone, but they were scared. Of what? A Black man against four cops?? I question why only the female officer fired her weapon. Something about this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

If the only defense is that the man was reaching inside the car, good luck. With that and a sympathetic jury the police have a winner. If you were a cop and the man you pulled over got out of the car as directed, raised his hand over his head as you had directed, and after walking around for awhile slowly reached inside his disabled car would you believe his motive was to pick up a gun and kill you? All four of you? There are many reasons the man would have reached inside the car, perhaps for a pack of cigarettes. You would have shot the man and I would not. Since the weapon (if there was one) was in the car I would have seen a weapon in his hand before he had the chance to point it at me and would have used deadly force at that point; not before. Perhaps I'm not as afraid as you are and I perhaps I have more confidence that I can respond timely to any threat.

I predict a civil lawsuit which will be settled out of court. I also believe the case will be referred to a grand jury for criminal prosecution. You apparently think nothing will come of it and I disagree. We shall see.




You have the last word. I'm outta here.

 

[Sundance508]

Or negroes can stop resisting arrest and ignoring lawful commands by police.

The fact you keep referring to them as negroes is evidence of your racist bias, hence, your opinion is not to be taken seriously. You harbor a lot of hate in your heart for someone who pretends to be so religious.

Negros

A obvious sub species but the liberals want you to believe all folks are alike...aka all folks are equal....even african cannibals.