Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary 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 to others.

The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.

To clarify - it doesn't matter how many times you shoot someone. If deadly force is justified then it's justified. You could drop a piano on their head like Wiley Coyote and it would still be either justified, or not justified, depending on the circumstances.

But yeah - if he kills an unarmed man while he's fleeing, then attempts to cover up the evidence, then he just earned himself a trip to the pokey.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary 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 to others.

The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.

How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Obviously I'm being facetious, and have very little respect for LEOs and their lack of training, but this seems to be the prevailing mindset in the United States.

You want better trained LEOs?

Then there needs to be a concentrated effort to start making the job something which people WANT to do as a career, rather than what local law enforcement is considered by many people going in it:
A stepping stone to working for the state or federal agencies or an easy "fallback" career for someone who can't make it anywhere else.

As it stands, it's a relatively low paying job with decent benefits and the opportunity to be reviled for the actions of others in your profession.
Who wouldn't want that, right?

We've disagreed on many things but in this instance you have 100% agreement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Obviously I'm being facetious, and have very little respect for LEOs and their lack of training, but this seems to be the prevailing mindset in the United States.

You want better trained LEOs?

Then there needs to be a concentrated effort to start making the job something which people WANT to do as a career, rather than what local law enforcement is considered by many people going in it:
A stepping stone to working for the state or federal agencies or an easy "fallback" career for someone who can't make it anywhere else.

As it stands, it's a relatively low paying job with decent benefits and the opportunity to be reviled for the actions of others in your profession.
Who wouldn't want that, right?

Fair enough...and I completely agree.

While we're on the subject, I'd also like to see institutional reforms to judges as well especially regarding accountability for signing bad warrants. Right now, if a judge signs a warrant for a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, and the entry team kills an innocent person, then they all "go home safe" and the judge isn't held accountable. I'd like to see liability measures put in place removing any and all legal protections from LEOs and judges in these "we got the wrong guy!" cases. In other words, - kick in the wrong person's door and kill them, and you go to jail for murder 1: everyone from the cop watching the street to the judge who signed the warrant. After all, they planned it, they executed it, and they murdered someone, and they're all complicit. Then we'd see some real movement in reducing these absurd "tactics."

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary 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 to others.

The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.

How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0
This article says 5 rounds hit him. Once in the ear, 3 in the back and 1 in the buttock. So to set the record straight he shot him 5 times not 8. Not that it matters. The force is ether justified or it's not. But since people seem to care so much about how many shots are fired I figured I'd present these facts.

This guy shot a little better than I expected - still - hes a terrible shot. 3 shots off target 1 hit in the ear and hits ranging across a huge area. Can we start training our officers to shoot please.

Spray and pray.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary 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 to others.

The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.

How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.

I think I read 5 of the 8.

And being that at most, he was picking him up on a warrant for child support, and there was never a weapon involved... There is no argument that he was in the act of committing a felony or a danger to the public at large which means even in the states with loose deadly force laws, attempting to flee arrest in this case wouldn't have justified it.

You have his car, know his identity... Let him run and let police car 2, which arrived really soon pick him up.

The story of the guy who filmed it is fascinating too. He almost deleted it because he feared for his life. When he heard the bs explanations on the news he knew he had to do something. I was afraid if the cop was going to murder someone, and then have the train of thought to stage a cover-up... what more is killing one more person to defend your actions? Very scary to not only witness a murder but have it on film and know you can't go to the police for protection.

Cameras for all... Maybe citizens need to begin carrying personal clothing cameras so they can always have a trailing 30 minutes of interactions for personal protection? In Russia, Dash cams are practically mandatory due to the accidents and the lies. I could see people in cities who have high chance of being harassed, (police or otherwise) may want to have a hidden camera running at all times. If the police won't use cameras, the citizens can.

 Xenomancers wrote:


This guy shot a little better than I expected - still - hes a terrible shot. 3 shots off target 1 hit in the ear and hits ranging across a huge area. Can we start training our officers to shoot please.

I agree.

But the money to do so has to come from somewhere.

Consistent target practice isn't cheap.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Spray and pray.

Thats pretty good actually. Recover from a confrontation and hit a target multiple times while they are on the run.

If he was from NY he would have hit 7 bystanders and wounded another cop...

nkelsch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary 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 to others.

The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.

How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.

I think I read 5 of the 8.

And being that at most, he was picking him up on a warrant for child support, and there was never a weapon involved... There is no argument that he was in the act of committing a felony or a danger to the public at large which means even in the states with loose deadly force laws, attempting to flee arrest in this case wouldn't have justified it.

You have his car, know his identity... Let him run and let police car 2, which arrived really soon pick him up.

The story of the guy who filmed it is fascinating too. He almost deleted it because he feared for his life. When he heard the bs explanations on the news he knew he had to do something. I was afraid if the cop was going to murder someone, and then have the train of thought to stage a cover-up... what more is killing one more person to defend your actions? Very scary to not only witness a murder but have it on film and know you can't go to the police for protection.

Cameras for all... Maybe citizens need to begin carrying personal clothing cameras so they can always have a trailing 30 minutes of interactions for personal protection? In Russia, Dash cams are practically mandatory due to the accidents and the lies. I could see people in cities who have high chance of being harassed, (police or otherwise) may want to have a hidden camera running at all times. If the police won't use cameras, the citizens can.

Cameras seem like a great idea. I think theres a lot of bad unintended consequences to making them a mandatory part of a police uniform though. In this case if there hadn't had been an observer this cop might have got away with concealing a crime. I can think of a ton of other situations cops will just refuse to go into certain situations with a camera for fear of self incrimination and their word meaning nothing. It will reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary 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 to others.

The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.

How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.

I think I read 5 of the 8.

And being that at most, he was picking him up on a warrant for child support, and there was never a weapon involved... There is no argument that he was in the act of committing a felony or a danger to the public at large which means even in the states with loose deadly force laws, attempting to flee arrest in this case wouldn't have justified it.

You have his car, know his identity... Let him run and let police car 2, which arrived really soon pick him up.

The story of the guy who filmed it is fascinating too. He almost deleted it because he feared for his life. When he heard the bs explanations on the news he knew he had to do something. I was afraid if the cop was going to murder someone, and then have the train of thought to stage a cover-up... what more is killing one more person to defend your actions? Very scary to not only witness a murder but have it on film and know you can't go to the police for protection.

Cameras for all... Maybe citizens need to begin carrying personal clothing cameras so they can always have a trailing 30 minutes of interactions for personal protection? In Russia, Dash cams are practically mandatory due to the accidents and the lies. I could see people in cities who have high chance of being harassed, (police or otherwise) may want to have a hidden camera running at all times. If the police won't use cameras, the citizens can.

Cameras seem like a great idea. I think theres a lot of bad unintended consequences to making them a mandatory part of a police uniform though. In this case if there hadn't had been an observer this cop might have got away with concealing a crime. I can think of a ton of other situations cops will just refuse to go into certain situations with a camera for fear of self incrimination and their word meaning nothing. It will reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement IMO.

They're afraid to go into certain situations because people will find out what they're doing in those situations?

Sounds like a bunch of fething scumbags who have no business in a profession that involves protecting the public. Fire and replace them.

Cameras are necessary for law enforcement. You work in the public, carry a weapon in public, and are charged with protecting the public, but don't want to wear a camera in public for fear of people finding out what you do to the public? See ya later.

Fully 100% with everything Nuggz just said. 100%.

 Frazzled wrote:
If he was from NY he would have hit 7 bystanders and wounded another cop...

Another cop 3 states over

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If he was from NY he would have hit 7 bystanders and wounded another cop...

Another cop 3 states over

and structural damage to a building

Yeah, I can't think of a valid reason a camera would reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement. It has worked wonders for Dashcams.

If a camera contradicts the word of a police officer then his word SHOULD mean nothing. If you think officers need the ability to push the line and infringe upon the rights of the general public to effectively do their job, then there need to be other changes which happen, especially as we enter a world with recording devices on every person and streetcorner.

The point about having a camera is that in the event of a trial the jury will have two different pieces of evidence about the same incident, the recording and the testimony of the police officer. If these are contradictory then it will be the jury's job to decide which to believe. However in most cases the two accounts will be basically the same, meaning that a camera is a good protection for an honest officer.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


This guy shot a little better than I expected - still - hes a terrible shot. 3 shots off target 1 hit in the ear and hits ranging across a huge area. Can we start training our officers to shoot please.

I agree.

But the money to do so has to come from somewhere.

Consistent target practice isn't cheap.

It's not simply an issue of cost. You also have to consider the time it takes to constantly have officers being evaluated for marksmanship.
That's time where officers are either pulled from duty rosters to ensure that they go through evaluation that really means anything.

Now that I think about it:

I think if I were a cop and someone snatched my Tazer from me then there and then I'd probably shoot him. Less lethal or not, they could taze you and / or then do more bodily harm.

But if the guy had my Tazer and and was already running away, I don't think that's threat enough to shoot them in the back.

Now if they turned around and charged back that would be different.

But granted, hard to armchair these things.

That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Spray and pray.

Thats pretty good actually. Recover from a confrontation and hit a target multiple times while they are on the run.

If he was from NY he would have hit 7 bystanders and wounded another cop...

Yeah I suppose it could have been worse. Like I said he shot a little better than I expected - lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

Right, which has been my only reason for defending that this is not murder. If there is any chance that the officer believed that the taser was in the fleeing mans hands - he had a reasonable threat. So at the time he believed the man was a threat and shot him. What he did next is inexcusable - altering the crime scene. He should serve a full sentence on that regardless of the outcome of this trial.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Spray and pray.

Thats pretty good actually. Recover from a confrontation and hit a target multiple times while they are on the run.

If he was from NY he would have hit 7 bystanders and wounded another cop...

Guy was only about 20 feet away though but it could have been worse.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point about having a camera is that in the event of a trial the jury will have two different pieces of evidence about the same incident, the recording and the testimony of the police officer. If these are contradictory then it will be the jury's job to decide which to believe. However in most cases the two accounts will be basically the same, meaning that a camera is a good protection for an honest officer.

>> Camera shows officer shooting someone
>> Officer denies the shooting

Judge: Hmmmm....who shall I believe?

Good thing no kids were in the park

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!

Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.

He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.

It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!

Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.

He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.

It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.

Actually if the dude had the taser - this would have been a justified shooting - it would constitute a reasonable threat. That's why he told the story and staged the scene to make it look that way. There still would have been controversy but no chance at a murder conviction. Now since the officer staged the scene after he was assualted (possibly believing that the man stole his taser) he is a murderer? I'm not going to speculate on the cops intentions. I tend to always assume someone is innocent until I see otherwise contrary evidence. What I see is a man resisting and assaulting a police officer (which is a crime) and then i see a dude get gunned down. I'm going to assume the cop thought he had a reasonable threat because that would be the proper reaction. It's going to be real hard to prove the cop didnt think the guy fleeing had the weapon. All he has to say is "he grabbed for my taser and I lost it and he started running" "I got to the victim and realized he didn't have it and I panicked because I didn't want to be lynched by the black panthers." I'm also of the party of people that believe if cops want to go killing random blacks - they could probably find a better way to do it than shooting 8 shots at a dude running away in a park in broad day light and witnesses.

Dash Cam video might be release later on today.

For D-USA the LEO was in the Coast Guard starting in 2003 to 2009. Harbor security. Straight into Charleston LE force after he ETSed out

As for Xenomancer post above. You can wing a better speculation then that.

Thanks

 Jihadin wrote:
Dash Cam video might be release later on today.

For D-USA the LEO was in the Coast Guard starting in 2003 to 2009. Harbor security. Straight into Charleston LE force after he ETSed out

As for Xenomancer post above. You can wing a better speculation then that.

Imagine what a lawyer could do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!

Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.

He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.

It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.

This.

If the officer had shot the man while he was resisting arrest and grabbing at the taser it would have been justified. Once the man was unarmed and fleeing he was no longer an imminent threat to anyone. Without a threat there is no justification for shooting him. That's been upheld in numerous shootings involving armed citizens and is the crux of self defense cases. Imminent threat = justification. No threat = no justification.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!

Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.

He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.

It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.

Actually if the dude had the taser - this would have been a justified shooting - it would constitute a reasonable threat. That's why he told the story and staged the scene to make it look that way. There still would have been controversy but no chance at a murder conviction. Now since the officer staged the scene after he was assualted (possibly believing that the man stole his taser) he is a murderer? I'm not going to speculate on the cops intentions. I tend to always assume someone is innocent until I see otherwise contrary evidence. What I see is a man resisting and assaulting a police officer (which is a crime) and then i see a dude get gunned down. I'm going to assume the cop thought he had a reasonable threat because that would be the proper reaction. It's going to be real hard to prove the cop didnt think the guy fleeing had the weapon. All he has to say is "he grabbed for my taser and I lost it and he started running" "I got to the victim and realized he didn't have it and I panicked because I didn't want to be lynched by the black panthers." I'm also of the party of people that believe if cops want to go killing random blacks - they could probably find a better way to do it than shooting 8 shots at a dude running away in a park in broad day light and witnesses.

Just a couple of pages back we were all looking up the relatively low rate of Taser caused harm by police officers Tasing civilians. Now, having a Taser while running away as fast as possible is a credible threat?