Tyre Nichols body cam footage

Well, yeah it is because they feel like it.

Here is what you posted...

One is...they have a reasonable suspicion that you are a flight risk.

And two...they have a reasonable suspicion that there is a risk of violence.

Both of those are based off feelings as they are 100% subjective.
Did you read the link?

Read the link.

While different signals could be interpreted subjectively...they must attest that those signals were presented.
 
For first and second degree murder, for the states that differentiate using those terms, one of the main determinants is intent.

It would be difficult to prove that the police intended to kill Mr Nichols.
That’s first degree murder. And I agree that the police didn’t intend to kill Nichols.

If they did, that would be impossible to prove.
 
Really? So if someone broke into your house you are not going to shoot them?
Of course I would…I’m not a trained cop. You believe there is a difference right? You can make the simple distinction right?
Could you imagine if we gave cops the right to shoot unarmed trespassers….Holy shit we’ve have a shit-ton of dead beaners at our border.
 
Cool story for the narrative you push…weird huh?
Tell us, since twice as many whites are killed by police, can you link us to any of those videos…and why don’t you ever do that?

Blacks are 14% of the population and going by your data they are 27% of the people killed by police.

So, yeah they are killed more by police.
 
That’s first degree murder. And I agree that the police didn’t intend to kill Nichols.

If they did, that would be impossible to prove.
You need to prove intent for 2nd as well I believe.

The determinant between 1st and 2nd is premeditation.
 
Blacks are 14% of the population and going by your data they are 27% of the people killed by police.

So, yeah they are killed more by police.
Blacks are still 14% when they represent 74% of NBA players
 
Can you post a link to that video please.

Here is a video with footage.
A quick google search didn't bring up the same dedicated views that I saw earlier.
Nonetheless, this footage seems to incorporate that elevated street cam view later in the presentation.
Go to the 1:50 mark.....and you can get a strong view of the encounter. It does depict the uniforms picking him up, standing him up, with his hands pinned behind him.......and them wailing on him.

 
Blacks are still 14% when they represent 74% of NBA players

989.jpg
 
And it still comes down to their feelings.
Does it?

I can tell when a car is going to cut me off in traffic.

Is that a feeling...or has it happened so often I recognize the cues?

I'm not 100% accurate...but I'm 90% correct.
 
They aren't required to.

But I'd could make the argument that they did.

And if I can do it, a defense attorney could do it better.
I was a deputy sheriff for 14 years. The continuum of force is there for a reason. It’s not just a recommendation.

You can not present a credible argument that the level of force they applied was ever appropriate. You also can not argue that Nichols’ conduct forced the officers to increase their application of force.

The first steps in the for e continuum is officer presence, verbal commands then soft empty hands. They went straight into hard empty hands and impact weapons.

Officers are trained to take the level of force one step higher than that of their subject. Nichols did no such thing.
 
Blacks are 14% of the population and going by your data they are 27% of the people killed by police.

So, yeah they are killed more by police.
Hmmm…that probably has nothing to do with the propensity for criminality among blacks huh? Probably has nothing to do with the total number of encounters huh?
Are those scary racist facts hard for you to wrap your head around…be totally honest?
 
It’s contemptible to support anything these officers did. Only a complete reprobate could justify their actions.
 
XponentialChaos


The police officers are going to argue that they followed the National Institute of Justice Use of Force Continuum...

The Use-of-Force Continuum
Your first link gives the definition of negligent homicide being without malice.

They give a few examples.

“Negligent homicide occurs when a defendant kills another person while engaging in conduct that they should have known carried risks. Ponder the following negligent homicide examples:

  • While caught up in the excitement of an outdoor holiday celebration, a guest shoots his firearm into the air. The bullet strikes another guest, killing them instantly.
  • A woman drives through a stop sign and strikes another vehicle, killing the driver. An investigation reveals that she was texting while driving and failed to observe the stop sign.”
Doesn’t fit with beating a person to death in my opinion. Seems to fit what I was saying.

What part of the second link are you referring to?
 
Back
Top Bottom