|
Post by overthecap on Apr 7, 2015 21:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redstone14 on Apr 8, 2015 1:08:11 GMT -5
Unless I didn't see what I think I just saw, that Cop is history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 8:40:34 GMT -5
Yeah, assholes like this give every jerkoff the platform they need to go against us.
|
|
|
Post by mrwizard on Apr 8, 2015 13:08:37 GMT -5
I can usually identify with the Cops in these shooting situations and understand why they did what they did. I don't understand this one.
|
|
|
Post by doughnut on Apr 8, 2015 15:29:59 GMT -5
Yeah, assholes like this give every jerkoff the platform they need to go against us. You are 2 billion percent correct. This video will be the "I told you so" of every anti cop, racist POS out there. Coupled with the media it will ignite more hatred toward the police in general.
|
|
|
Post by luvinretrmnt on Apr 8, 2015 15:55:20 GMT -5
The real truth is the savage probably deserved to be shot for something he did another day..the sad truth is it wasnt today and its on tape, but the media will run with this for months and the hundreds of savages that shoot at the police and kill cops on a regular basis are rarely covered or make news and if they do the media makes up all kinds of excuses for them...but a cop fvcks up and it national headlines for weeks....
|
|
|
Post by bohica9 on Apr 8, 2015 19:45:36 GMT -5
It is very hard to defend this guy, but we have not seen what happened before the tape began. We do not know if the PO was assaulted, hit with his own stun gun/taser, pushed, spat upon, etc. I know none of those justifies DPF, but I have to give him some benefit of the doubt until trial. We have all been in this guys shoes more than once. If he f'ed up, it might not be murder. I do not think this PO woke up that day wanting to shoot someone. It might be negligent, after an assault. As a retired PO, I want to see him given the same benefit of the doubt available to every mutt. It is almost like we are seeing the end of a Western where the Sheriff shoots the bad guy, without seeing what the bad guy did in the beginning of the movie. Imagine being in this guys shoes.... .....because one day, you might just be.
SC might have different DPF laws, which allow shooting a fleeing felon. Remember our DPF laws, in some rare instances, you can too.
In today's anti-police climate, he doesn't have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by overthecap on Apr 8, 2015 21:14:28 GMT -5
It is very hard to defend this guy, but we have not seen what happened before the tape began. We do not know if the PO was assaulted, hit with his own stun gun/taser, pushed, spat upon, etc. I know none of those justifies DPF, but I have to give him some benefit of the doubt until trial. We have all been in this guys shoes more than once. If he f'ed up, it might not be murder. I do not think this PO woke up that day wanting to shoot someone. It might be negligent, after an assault. As a retired PO, I want to see him given the same benefit of the doubt available to every mutt. It is almost like we are seeing the end of a Western where the Sheriff shoots the bad guy, without seeing what the bad guy did in the beginning of the movie. Imagine being in this guys shoes....because one day, you might just be. SC might have different DPF laws, which allow shooting a fleeing felon. Remember our DPF laws, in some rare instances, you can too. In today's anti-police climate, he doesn't have a chance. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless 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. At about 10:45 p.m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Department Officers Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon were dispatched to answer a burglary call next door. Officer Hymon went behind the house as his partner radioed back to the station. Hymon witnessed someone running across the yard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-foot-high (1.8 m) chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed. The police testified that they believed Garner was 17 or 18 years old; Garner was in fact 15 years old. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, Garner began to climb the fence. Believing that Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, Hymon shot him. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head, and he died shortly after an ambulance took him to a nearby hospital. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the burglarized house were found on his person. Hymon acted according to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Garner's father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director, and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court found the statute, and Hymon's actions, to be constitutional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
|
|
|
Post by SCPD Ret. on Apr 8, 2015 23:58:22 GMT -5
Just to clarify this....he's from North Charleston SOUTH Carolina, not NORTH Carolina. but either way.....it's horrible.
|
|
|
Post by luvinretrmnt on Apr 9, 2015 6:46:35 GMT -5
So the justice dept will investigate if any civil rights of the savage were violated, so that should mean that any black on white crime should be investigated for civil rights violations...throughout the USA...why doesnt that happen? ..whats the criminal background of the subject??? the news media is pretty quiet on this....usually they portray them as little misunderstood angels..........
|
|
|
Post by overthecap on Apr 9, 2015 6:52:10 GMT -5
Just to clarify this....he's from North Charleston SOUTH Carolina, not NORTH Carolina. but either way.....it's horrible. My bad Let's not start another Civil War. LOL Thnx
|
|
|
Post by overthecap on Apr 9, 2015 7:35:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kablaam on Apr 9, 2015 13:16:30 GMT -5
We should sue them for trademark infringement
|
|
|
Post by pdcn63 on Apr 9, 2015 17:05:05 GMT -5
HOW IS THAT A " BAD SHOOT" HE HIT THE TARGET PERFECTLY
|
|
|
Post by overthecap on Apr 9, 2015 17:53:04 GMT -5
HOW IS THAT A " BAD SHOOT" HE HIT THE TARGET PERFECTLY sad
|
|