User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 9:53:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly, but having moved the taser he's damaged goods, a lying scumbag engaged in a coverup and would not be believed, maybe in other areas? Seems like cops in other areas get away with use of force that I don't think would fly here. Edit, don't get me wrong it's a clever defense Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt I could find a real life prosecutor or cop who would agree with the claims here that an unarmed man fleeing a traffic stop can be legally shot because he wrestled a taser away from a cop then dropped it on the ground and fled that is not the imminent risk of a substantial likelihood of harm to the community required to kill someone who is unarmed and fleeing From the video I do not believe the officer thought the taser was on the ground but with the person who assaulted and disarmed him. His OODA Loop had already engaged to deploy his weapon and fire. I'm not saying it's not a fucked up situation but a murder charge is bullshit. Edit, don't get me wrong it's a clever defense Ehhh I think media and politics drive charges these days not what actually happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 9:58:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are mommy and daddy fighting?  Foreplay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 10:01:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Keep in mind - and I think the laws reflect - just how dangerous it is to try and shoot a guy in the back who is running away, after a high-intensity fight. Are you sure he hit with every shot, or did some miss and go God knows where? That's why you don't do it unless you know that this guy is so dangerous that the risk is justified to stop him. And I don't see how they can prove that here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 10:03:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm more like 50/50 with a chance of mistrial. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm more like 50/50 with a chance of mistrial. Lexington or an upstate county... good chance his walks. Charleston? He's probably going to prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 10:03:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read it again. And no that isn't the only reason. It is the only one you should consider in the moment, but it is on every of several possibilities Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not seeing anything earth shattering in the link. (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Seems to me this covers disarming a police of his taser. Only one reason for a violent person to take an officers taser and this is to incapacitate the officer, take his sidearm and murder him with it. Read it again. And no that isn't the only reason. It is the only one you should consider in the moment, but it is on every of several possibilities We will have to disagree, the only reason to disarm an officer in the lawful performance of his duties is to kill him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 10:12:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Not guilty. At all. AND, guy was high and drunk out of his mind. Cocaine in his system? Well, what an upstanding citizen! Shame on me!
If, as it appears in that video, guy wrestled with cop, on ground, and then fought back against tazer and tried to take tazer and maybe did manage too......Totally clean shoot. Guy will walk, life destroyed. AND you mean to tell me that a guy that was high on drugs and getting physical with a cop, who as it looks attacked cop, fought back, then ran off IS NOT A THREAT TO ANY OTHER PERSON? Woman stuck in traffic for a car jacking to get away? Maybe grab a kid as a hostage? Or, as already outlined, wait and ambush the cop when he comes looking after catching up? Maybe this 'community college grad' fresh on his way to a new life could have broken into a house and tried to hide, maybe gotten into a struggle with an innocent home owner? You guys really want to tell me he was NOT a threat to others AFTER HE ATTACKED A COP AND RESISTED, HIGH ON COCAINE? Jesus. Trump or not, this kind of stupidity or immorality is what will destroy us. Hate and destroy those who try to protect us and then ask 'who is destroying our country?' It is you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 11:23:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he walks you face the trash (that's a given) as well as many of the otherwise law abiding members of society. Choose wisely. Please. Elaborate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 11:42:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Much of GD won't understand the entire sequence of events and the resulting effects on the officer and suspect that lead to this outcome in terms of mental perception, visual impairment, delayed reactions, impaired mental processing, and the final decision to shoot as a result.
In the end, the guy is not guilty by legal standards. The Jury may not comprehend all of that. This one is very technical in terms of the law and human physiology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2016 11:47:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep in mind - and I think the laws reflect - just how dangerous it is to try and shoot a guy in the back who is running away, after a high-intensity fight. Are you sure he hit with every shot, or did some miss and go God knows where? That's why you don't do it unless you know that this guy is so dangerous that the risk is justified to stop him. And I don't see how they can prove that here. At what point did the officer make the decision to shoot and was it justified then...vs...the actual time it took to process and impliment that course of action. Remember, officer allegedly got a good dose of his own taser...did some full on hand to hand where he got punched in the head...had a foot chase. What is the officer's ability to see/hear/process/decide at that stage? How fast is he still working, mentally...then actioning that decision? Your answer is right there in that sequence. A lot of people who haven't experienced getting hit hard in the head, running full sprint in gear, taser, and so on...won't fully understand that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 12:24:26 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We will have to disagree, the only reason to disarm an officer in the lawful performance of his duties is to kill him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not seeing anything earth shattering in the link. (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Seems to me this covers disarming a police of his taser. Only one reason for a violent person to take an officers taser and this is to incapacitate the officer, take his sidearm and murder him with it. Read it again. And no that isn't the only reason. It is the only one you should consider in the moment, but it is on every of several possibilities We will have to disagree, the only reason to disarm an officer in the lawful performance of his duties is to kill him. You don't think he could have done it to prevent the officer from tazing him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 6:32:06 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you worked in the hood would you leave an unsecured weapon on the ground to walk off? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I bet the officer walks. While stupid and not a good shoot, the prosecution may have trouble showing how the officer was wrong legally. I think the video of him moving the taser will turn the jury off If you worked in the hood would you leave an unsecured weapon on the ground to walk off? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 6:55:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryNo comments on this, so bumping it. View with an open mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 6:56:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Given his past history I don't care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 7:28:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given his past history I don't care. Explain past history, I don't know is why I ask. Klansman? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 8:32:11 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Much of GD won't understand the entire sequence of events and the resulting effects on the officer and suspect that lead to this outcome in terms of mental perception, visual impairment, delayed reactions, impaired mental processing, and the final decision to shoot as a result. In the end, the guy is not guilty by legal standards. The Jury may not comprehend all of that. This one is very technical in terms of the law and human physiology. Agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 8:33:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't think he could have done it to prevent the officer from tazing him? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We will have to disagree, the only reason to disarm an officer in the lawful performance of his duties is to kill him. You don't think he could have done it to prevent the officer from tazing him? No. The only reason to attempt a disarm of an officer in the legal course of his duties is to kill him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 8:36:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will never get it. Partly stupidity and partly brainwashing. I'm glad Im getting out of this gig. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder how different the cops statement is to the video. Video sure looked like an execution followed by some evidence planting. If cop's statement mirrors what it looks like he was staging, then it doesn't matter what happened prior to that. The video will totally fuck him and his word won't be worth shit. Hope is if he suffered some injury that would indicate the altercation was more serious than just a minor scuffle of a man that just wanted to get away, not intent on causing harm. Therefore some physical evidence to tell the story the video doesn't show would be the cop's only hope. Cop's lawyer will also need to somehow convince the jury that the suspect was violent while preventing the prosecutors from letting on that all he had was a warrant for child support. I'm still not getting how you guys don't consider the resisting arrest, assault of an officer and disarming of an officer in the legal performance of his duties is not violent. They will never get it. Partly stupidity and partly brainwashing. I'm glad Im getting out of this gig. Why? Respect for police is at a near all time high. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 9:07:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Did you know, most country's don't even have an additional charge for resisting arrest. In England cops and miscreants fight, if the cop doesn't win the guy gets away and that's the end of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 10:22:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The only reason to attempt a disarm of an officer in the legal course of his duties is to kill him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We will have to disagree, the only reason to disarm an officer in the lawful performance of his duties is to kill him. You don't think he could have done it to prevent the officer from tazing him? No. The only reason to attempt a disarm of an officer in the legal course of his duties is to kill him. Now you're just trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 12:17:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now you're just trolling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We will have to disagree, the only reason to disarm an officer in the lawful performance of his duties is to kill him. You don't think he could have done it to prevent the officer from tazing him? No. The only reason to attempt a disarm of an officer in the legal course of his duties is to kill him. Now you're just trolling. Police also say they tried to use a Taser on the man, and eventually he grabbed the Taser. Officers on the scene reported the man then used the Taser on the police there and a nurse. Ultimately, police say the man charged at the Garfield Heights officer holding the Taser, and that officer fired a shot. Police say the suspect was hit in the back of the neck, and he was taken by helicopter to MetroHealth Medical Center. http://fox8.com/2015/08/27/police-man-shot-after-taking-security-officers-taser-in-hospital-emergency-room/ Wardlow reportedly tried to hit an officer, so the officer pulled out his taser and told Wardlow to get on the ground. Wardlow complied with the demand. But when the officer went to handcuff the suspect, he got on top of the officer and took his taser, according to reports. Officials say Wardlow pointed the taser at the officer and that’s when the officer pulled his gun and shot the suspect. Jonathan Wardlow was fatally injured. http://kfor.com/2015/12/13/officials-suspect-shot-killed-after-taking-officers-taser/ Officers were called to a house on the street for a report of a major disturbance. They arrived to find the man, Salvador Munoz, sitting on the front porch. Police said Munoz "became combative and aggressive." The officers tried to handcuff him "and a physical struggle ensued." At that point, police said, one of the officers tried to use a Taser, but Munoz wrestled it away from him and pointed it at the officer. "The witnesses report that they heard the officer giving loud verbal commands to the suspect to drop the Taser," a Dallas Police Department press release says. "The suspect refused. The officer discharged his weapon striking the suspect." Munoz died at the scene. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2013/11/02/dallas-police-say-they-shot-22-year-old-man-after-he-attempted-to-use-a-taser-on-officers |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 12:19:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Stop trolling Bama!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 12:28:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop trolling Bama!
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 12:36:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Shooting an unarmed anyone in the back 30 feet away is murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 1:39:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stop trolling Bama!
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 1:41:03 PM EDT
[#25]
With all that said, I still think this trial could go either way.
I usually feel good about the calls I make but I have no idea on this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 2:34:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop trolling Bama!
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. No one is stomping their feet, you have to be trolling. There is a huge difference between all of the cases you posted and the guy throwing the taser and running away, then when there is obviously zero threat to slager getting multiple shots to the back, then the planting of evidence to fit the narrative of the story he decided to tell. Had he shot the guy while fighting or while "being attacked with the taser" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Again, the evidence plant will hang him as nothing he says is credible after those actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 2:52:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is stomping their feet, you have to be trolling. There is a huge difference between all of the cases you posted and the guy throwing the taser and running away, then when there is obviously zero threat to slager getting multiple shots to the back, then the planting of evidence to fit the narrative of the story he decided to tell. Had he shot the guy while fighting or while "being attacked with the taser" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Again, the evidence plant will hang him as nothing he says is credible after those actions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. No one is stomping their feet, you have to be trolling. There is a huge difference between all of the cases you posted and the guy throwing the taser and running away, then when there is obviously zero threat to slager getting multiple shots to the back, then the planting of evidence to fit the narrative of the story he decided to tell. Had he shot the guy while fighting or while "being attacked with the taser" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Again, the evidence plant will hang him as nothing he says is credible after those actions. IMO, from watching the video I believe he thought the suspect still had the taser, he did not realize it ended up behind him after the struggle. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? I don't dispute him moving the taser from it's original deployment spot was not smart. Accusing me of trolling is about as weak sauce as you can get. If you can't handle debate don't post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 2:59:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you worked in the hood would you leave an unsecured weapon on the ground to walk off? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet the officer walks. While stupid and not a good shoot, the prosecution may have trouble showing how the officer was wrong legally. I think the video of him moving the taser will turn the jury off If you worked in the hood would you leave an unsecured weapon on the ground to walk off? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, but it doesn't work for me. In that situation, if you don't feel comfortable with your own or a suspect's weapon staying where it is because of a crowd developing or not enough backup or something, you holster it (if it's your own) or put it in your squad car or clear it and put it in your pocket if the car isn't close. What you don't do is pick it up and then drop it right next to the guy who you just shot for using it against you. That's dangerous and bad police work, as you've now potentially given him a second chance to use it if he's not actually incapacitated or you cuffed him wrong. The more I think about it, the more it seems like he was just fucking with the crime scene. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 3:13:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop trolling Bama!
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. You fail to distinguish between the correct assumption by doctrine if a weapon is taken (that it is a lethal force event) and the myriad actual reasons that may exist in actuality and matter in the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 3:20:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period.
So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 3:27:11 PM EDT
[#31]
I think he's going to be convicted, and deserves to be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 3:28:14 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At what point did the officer make the decision to shoot and was it justified then...vs...the actual time it took to process and impliment that course of action. Remember, officer allegedly got a good dose of his own taser...did some full on hand to hand where he got punched in the head...had a foot chase. What is the officer's ability to see/hear/process/decide at that stage? How fast is he still working, mentally...then actioning that decision? Your answer is right there in that sequence. A lot of people who haven't experienced getting hit hard in the head, running full sprint in gear, taser, and so on...won't fully understand that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind - and I think the laws reflect - just how dangerous it is to try and shoot a guy in the back who is running away, after a high-intensity fight. Are you sure he hit with every shot, or did some miss and go God knows where? That's why you don't do it unless you know that this guy is so dangerous that the risk is justified to stop him. And I don't see how they can prove that here. At what point did the officer make the decision to shoot and was it justified then...vs...the actual time it took to process and impliment that course of action. Remember, officer allegedly got a good dose of his own taser...did some full on hand to hand where he got punched in the head...had a foot chase. What is the officer's ability to see/hear/process/decide at that stage? How fast is he still working, mentally...then actioning that decision? Your answer is right there in that sequence. A lot of people who haven't experienced getting hit hard in the head, running full sprint in gear, taser, and so on...won't fully understand that. I'm all for giving deference to his ability to see, hear, process, and decide being diminished if the subjects of police raids designed to inhibit the targets' ability to see, hear, process, and decide are given the same rather than "so he didn't identify his target?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 3:40:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.Smart move would have been laying low and only answering dispatched 911 calls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 3:59:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He attacked a police officer while fleeing. Those who would attack a police officer will hurt anyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What type of violent crime do you think he would commit if he escaped? He attacked a police officer while fleeing. Those who would attack a police officer will hurt anyone else. This People are gonna freak out but it's justified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:05:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You fail to distinguish between the correct assumption by doctrine if a weapon is taken (that it is a lethal force event) and the myriad actual reasons that may exist in actuality and matter in the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop trolling Bama!
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. You fail to distinguish between the correct assumption by doctrine if a weapon is taken (that it is a lethal force event) and the myriad actual reasons that may exist in actuality and matter in the law. The weapon does not even have to be taken to use deadly force. The mere attempting to take a weapon from an officer has long been established as a deadly force event. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:06:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, but it doesn't work for me. In that situation, if you don't feel comfortable with your own or a suspect's weapon staying where it is because of a crowd developing or not enough backup or something, you holster it (if it's your own) or put it in your squad car or clear it and put it in your pocket if the car isn't close. What you don't do is pick it up and then drop it right next to the guy who you just shot for using it against you. That's dangerous and bad police work, as you've now potentially given him a second chance to use it if he's not actually incapacitated or you cuffed him wrong. The more I think about it, the more it seems like he was just fucking with the crime scene. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet the officer walks. While stupid and not a good shoot, the prosecution may have trouble showing how the officer was wrong legally. I think the video of him moving the taser will turn the jury off If you worked in the hood would you leave an unsecured weapon on the ground to walk off? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, but it doesn't work for me. In that situation, if you don't feel comfortable with your own or a suspect's weapon staying where it is because of a crowd developing or not enough backup or something, you holster it (if it's your own) or put it in your squad car or clear it and put it in your pocket if the car isn't close. What you don't do is pick it up and then drop it right next to the guy who you just shot for using it against you. That's dangerous and bad police work, as you've now potentially given him a second chance to use it if he's not actually incapacitated or you cuffed him wrong. The more I think about it, the more it seems like he was just fucking with the crime scene. His squad car was several blocks away. I don't disagree it looks bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:06:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Tag
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:07:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.Just stop chasing the bad guy? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:11:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His squad car was several blocks away. I don't disagree it looks bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet the officer walks. While stupid and not a good shoot, the prosecution may have trouble showing how the officer was wrong legally. I think the video of him moving the taser will turn the jury off If you worked in the hood would you leave an unsecured weapon on the ground to walk off? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, but it doesn't work for me. In that situation, if you don't feel comfortable with your own or a suspect's weapon staying where it is because of a crowd developing or not enough backup or something, you holster it (if it's your own) or put it in your squad car or clear it and put it in your pocket if the car isn't close. What you don't do is pick it up and then drop it right next to the guy who you just shot for using it against you. That's dangerous and bad police work, as you've now potentially given him a second chance to use it if he's not actually incapacitated or you cuffed him wrong. The more I think about it, the more it seems like he was just fucking with the crime scene. His squad car was several blocks away. I don't disagree it looks bad. Yes, but "looks bad" and "is legally bad" are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:14:29 PM EDT
[#40]
I think it may well be a bad shoot for a different reason entirely.
My understanding is that Slager was armed with an X26 TASER and deployed it(ineffectively) at Scott prior to the fight and shooting. Scott, escaping with a deployed X26 was effectively now armed with a stun gun, a non lethal pain compliance tool incapable of incapacitating anyone. If you are going to carry a TASER(I don't carry one FWIW, certified on X26 and X2) you need to understand how the tool works and what state it is in. Someone armed with a loaded TASER has the ability to incapacitate you and take your gun. Someone armed with an expended X26 has the ability to sting you repeatedly with an electrical arc and cause great irritation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:31:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The weapon does not even have to be taken to use deadly force. The mere attempting to take a weapon from an officer has long been established as a deadly force event. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop trolling Bama!
He ought to. He knows perfectly well that there can be other reasons to take a weapon away. Had he survived would you two have charged the decedent with attempted murder? The doctrine is anyone who attempts to take a weapon (gun, taser, baton, OC, handcuffs etc) from an officer will attempt to use it on the officer to murder the officer. The doctrine is solid and well known. If this was not the case the officers in the attached stories I presented would have been charged criminally, they were not. Also as evidenced by the above shootings the doctrine is common practice across the U.S. Taking a weapon or attempting to take weapon from an officer is a deadly force event. You can stomp you feet and say it isn't so but that is not changing the reality of it. You fail to distinguish between the correct assumption by doctrine if a weapon is taken (that it is a lethal force event) and the myriad actual reasons that may exist in actuality and matter in the law. The weapon does not even have to be taken to use deadly force. The mere attempting to take a weapon from an officer has long been established as a deadly force event. Again, what is treated doctrinally as a deadly force event is not necessarily legally or factually a lethal force event. You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that taking a taser constitutes attempted murder? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:32:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it may well be a bad shoot for a different reason entirely. My understanding is that Slager was armed with an X26 TASER and deployed it(ineffectively) at Scott prior to the fight and shooting. Scott, escaping with a deployed X26 was effectively now armed with a stun gun, a non lethal pain compliance tool incapable of incapacitating anyone. If you are going to carry a TASER(I don't carry one FWIW, certified on X26 and X2) you need to understand how the tool works and what state it is in. Someone armed with a loaded TASER has the ability to incapacitate you and take your gun. Someone armed with an expended X26 has the ability to sting you repeatedly with an electrical arc and cause great irritation. I was wondering about the significance of this but there's so much bullshit about who had the probes in them that who knows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:41:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just stop chasing the bad guy?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.Just stop chasing the bad guy?
If he was such an imminent deadly threat, yes wait for backup....but he wasnt, hence the evidence plant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:43:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If he was such an imminent deadly threat, yes wait for backup Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.Just stop chasing the bad guy? If he was such an imminent deadly threat, yes wait for backup It is the job of a police officer to handle imminent deadly threats, not call other police officers and wait from a place of safety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 4:59:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is the job of a police officer to handle imminent deadly threats, not call other police officers and wait from a place of safety. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.Just stop chasing the bad guy?
If he was such an imminent deadly threat, yes wait for backup It is the job of a police officer to handle imminent deadly threats, not call other police officers and wait from a place of safety. that seems to be an SOP in a lot of areas. You can sure do what slager did and be facing spending a long time in prison and not seeing your kid grow up. Either way there will be repercussions for all leos that result from this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 5:01:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: that seems to be an SOP in a lot of areas. You can sure do what slager did and be facing spending a long time in prison and not seeing your kid grow up. Either way there will be repercussions for all leos that result from this case. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe you are not trolling, but there are other reasons someone might disarm an officer....but any officer should respond as if that was the intent....period. So he has already been tased twice by the suspect.---Per Slagers story which is no longer credible. So are you going to chase him down thinking he is armed with a taser and chance him tasing you again and taking your weapon? ---No, the smart move would be to call backup and let him go, temporarily until you have the manpower to take him in. (fat boy wasn't going far or hiding ) a half mag dump into his back is not the smart move.Just stop chasing the bad guy? If he was such an imminent deadly threat, yes wait for backup It is the job of a police officer to handle imminent deadly threats, not call other police officers and wait from a place of safety. that seems to be an SOP in a lot of areas. You can sure do what slager did and be facing spending a long time in prison and not seeing your kid grow up. Either way there will be repercussions for all leos that result from this case. No, it is SOP to request backup when needed to ensure officer safety and not blindly yell "SQUIRREL" and chase everyone who runs. This has nothing to do with Slager, I'm addressing your assertion that the proper course to take when faced with an imminent lethal threat is anything other than immediate decisive action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 5:23:22 PM EDT
[#47]
My assertion was made somewhat tongue in cheek as he was not an imminent threat to anyone when Slager shot him. I agree 100% had he taken the taser trying to incapacitate Slager and been shot in the process it would have been a great shoot and Slager would still be on duty and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I genuinely feel sorry for Michael Slager he probably is a good guy that made a really bad decision and may suffer severely for it. He was certainly a more positive influence on our society than the dead guy. I think he should have taken a plea for some type of assault with little or no time served and go on and take care of his family. He is making a very, very big gamble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 5:40:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't think he could have done it to prevent the officer from tazing him? I wonder if there was a much simpler option that would have removed the need for tasing the suspect................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 5:44:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you know, most country's don't even have an additional charge for resisting arrest. In England cops and miscreants fight, if the cop doesn't win the guy gets away and that's the end of it. you gonna fight with cops in Germany, Thailand, etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2016 6:18:58 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm all for giving deference to his ability to see, hear, process, and decide being diminished if the subjects of police raids designed to inhibit the targets' ability to see, hear, process, and decide are given the same rather than "so he didn't identify his target?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind - and I think the laws reflect - just how dangerous it is to try and shoot a guy in the back who is running away, after a high-intensity fight. Are you sure he hit with every shot, or did some miss and go God knows where? That's why you don't do it unless you know that this guy is so dangerous that the risk is justified to stop him. And I don't see how they can prove that here. At what point did the officer make the decision to shoot and was it justified then...vs...the actual time it took to process and impliment that course of action. Remember, officer allegedly got a good dose of his own taser...did some full on hand to hand where he got punched in the head...had a foot chase. What is the officer's ability to see/hear/process/decide at that stage? How fast is he still working, mentally...then actioning that decision? Your answer is right there in that sequence. A lot of people who haven't experienced getting hit hard in the head, running full sprint in gear, taser, and so on...won't fully understand that. I'm all for giving deference to his ability to see, hear, process, and decide being diminished if the subjects of police raids designed to inhibit the targets' ability to see, hear, process, and decide are given the same rather than "so he didn't identify his target?" He identified it clearly...the guy violently attacked a LEO. The LEO was tasered with his own taser (lethal force event), and then responded with lethal force... He just did it slower than GD would like. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
