Law 5 Oklahoma officers charged in shooting of armed robbery suspect

[ultramanhyata]

I'm sure you've tons of experience confronting armed criminals. You should for sure lecture the guy who everyone knows was paid to do so or years.

Life has taught be that letting the fox design the hen houses is unwise.

 

[Mcountry]

Play dumb games win dumb prizes. But who the fuck is going to want to be a cop now?

 

[cleetus]

Not sure if sarcastic. If so, read my other posts. I have said many times this was a bad shoot. I can just see both sides to charging and not charging the officers

Disagree. Using Graham, the cops had a reasonable belief that the bad guy could still be armed, compounded by the fact that he did not prone himself out AND he reached to a place where weapons are commonly found on criminals. You have no obligation to allow an armed criminal to draw and shoot you before you can take action to prevent it. These cops will all be acquitted if charged, and it's a waste of time to do so since it will only fan the flames. Furthermore, this won't have media staying power because of the race of the suspect.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Disagree. Using Graham, the cops had a reasonable belief that the bad guy could still be armed, compounded by the fact that he did not prone himself out AND he reached to a place where weapons are commonly found on criminals. You have no obligation to allow an armed criminal to draw and shoot you before you can take action to prevent it. These cops will all be acquitted if charged, and it's a waste of time to do so since it will only fan the flames. Furthermore, this won't have media staying power because of the race of the suspect.

The Graham ruling has nothing to do with this, though. Graham dealt with a Section 1983 civil case for alleged violations of his Constitutional rights. I tend to agree that these 5 officers are fine under the current federal civil standard, but proving they committed a crime is a much higher burden. I would be shocked if these officers are convicted of anything.

 

[cleetus]

The Graham ruling has nothing to do with this, though. Graham dealt with a Section 1983 civil case for alleged violations of his Constitutional rights. I tend to agree that these 5 officers are fine under the current federal civil standard, but proving they committed a crime is a much higher burden. I would be shocked if these officers are convicted of anything.

Graham is about using the facts known to the officers at the time of the incident, not what you learn after monday morning quarterbacking it.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Graham is about using the facts known to the officers at the time of the incident, not what you learn after monday morning quarterbacking it.

Right, but it's applied in Federal civil rights litigation cases (usually 1983), not state criminal cases. The defense will likely make similar arguments as they would for a 1983 case (I'm sure the family of the deceased will file one), but Graham itself is technically irrelevant to the criminal case.

 

[G-19]

Graham is about using the facts known to the officers at the time of the incident, not what you learn after monday morning quarterbacking it.

If the officers were dispatched that there were two offenders on scene and they’re armed with a handgun it is reasonable to believe that he had two on him. There’s an old saying, two is one and one is none. I’ve had a few incidents in which I searched someone and discovered a handgun in their waistband or jacket pocket only to discover another one they jocked. I don’t think this is a good shoot but they definitely won’t be convicted based on the information provided to this point.

 

[cleetus]

Right, but it's applied in Federal civil rights litigation cases (usually 1983), not state criminal cases. The defense will likely make similar arguments as they would for a 1983 case (I'm sure the family of the deceased will file one), but Graham itself is technically irrelevant to the criminal case.

It's absolutely relevant to the criminal case. Objective reasonability is exactly what will acquit them.

Brush up on that case law brah.

 

[GoldenWolf87]

Why was the suspect trying to look in his pants? did he another weapon?

 

[cleetus]

If the officers were dispatched that there were two offenders on scene and they’re armed with a handgun it is reasonable to believe that he had two on him. There’s an old saying, two is one and one is none. I’ve had a few incidents in which I searched someone and discovered a handgun in their waistband or jacket pocket only to discover another one they jocked. I don’t think this is a good shoot but they definitely won’t be convicted based on the information provided to this point.

It's also reasonable to believe that after tossing one weapon and then reaching back into his waistband while disobeying the direction to prone himself that there was the 'reasonable' probability that another weapon may be coming out. Also consider that the video shows US that he was likely pulling up his pants, but the cops on the ground just saw an armed robber reach back into his rear waistband area.

GOOD shoot.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

It's absolutely relevant to the criminal case. Objective reasonability is exactly what will acquit them.

Brush up on that case law brah.

Lol, I'm well aware of the case law for 1983 cases. This isn't about civil liability though, it's about criminal liability. Graham was strictly about civil liability for alleged violations of Constitutional rights. Yes, objective reasonability will absolutely be extremely relevant here and I agree it should ultimately acquit the officers, but Graham isn't some binding precedent for this case.

I'll just agree that the underlying reasoning and factual determinations relevant to Graham will be relevant here, even if the case itself is not controlling.

 

[cleetus]

Lol, I'm well aware of the case law for 1983 cases. This isn't about civil liability though, it's about criminal liability. Graham was strictly about civil liability for alleged violations of Constitutional rights. Yes, objective reasonability will absolutely be extremely relevant here and I agree it should ultimately acquit the officers, but Graham isn't some binding precedent for this case.

I'll just agree that the underlying reasoning and factual determinations relevant to Graham will be relevant here, even if the case itself is not controlling.

This entire case will hinge upon whether or not what they did was reasonable given their knowledge at the time. That is Graham in a nutshell. I don't see your point in arguing that fact. The 1983 is coming no matter what, and the family will get paid, as they always do. My concern is that the cops were handed a shit sandwich and reacted to a bad decision by the bad guy, but what they did was objectively reasonable and not criminal. Therefore, the shooting will be judged as "good" even though it was shitty.

 

[G-19]

It's also reasonable to believe that after tossing one weapon and then reaching back into his waistband while disobeying the direction to prone himself that there was the 'reasonable' probability that another weapon may be coming out. Also consider that the video shows US that he was likely pulling up his pants, but the cops on the ground just saw an armed robber reach back into his rear waistband area.

GOOD shoot.

Meant to say not a good shoot in my opinion. I have a higher threshold than what some officers in this incident have for deadly force apparently. If I have a good sight picture, I’m not fucking shooting you because your hands are not where I can see them and you aren’t responding to several officers commands. I’ve had plenty of times where someone was reaching under a couch cushion and I’ve had my gun on them and told them keep your hands there till I tell you to move them. I move into an advantageous position and when he shows nothing we cuff him. I understand exactly what you just said and I know that they’ll be judged by what other officers consider reasonable and objective but I’ll give someone a chance if it appears they’re attempting to surrender. Here’s the thing, just cause you can shoot someone doesn’t always mean you have to. They could’ve given him a chance to surrender. Often times these stressful situations make officers fixate on the offender and lose communication with each other and that’s when we see these massive fuck ups.

 

[cleetus]

Meant to say not a good shoot in my opinion. I have a higher threshold than what some officers in this incident have for deadly force apparently. If I have a good sight picture, I’m not fucking shooting you because your hands are not where I can see them and you aren’t responding to several officers commands. I’ve had plenty of times where someone was reaching under a couch cushion and I’ve had my gun on them and told them keep your hands there till I tell you to move them. I move into an advantageous position and when he shows nothing we cuff him. I understand exactly what you just said and I know that they’ll be judged by what other officers consider reasonable and objective but I’ll give someone a chance if it appears they’re attempting to surrender. Here’s the thing, just cause you can shoot someone doesn’t always mean you have to. They could’ve given him a chance to surrender. Often times these stressful situations make officers fixate on the offender and lose communication with each other and that’s when we see these massive fuck ups.

A bad shoot would mean you think the cops will be found criminally guilty. I don't think a fair jury could ever find them guilty, which would make it a 'good' shoot - even though they probably could have done better.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

A bad shoot would mean you think the cops will be found criminally guilty. I don't think a fair jury could ever find them guilty, which would make it a 'good' shoot - even though they probably could have done better.

Nah. Everyone knows cops are likely to get off no matter what. A bad shoot means you think it was at the very least a poor decision.

 

[nhbbear]

Piggies gonna squeal.

Easy there, prez or I will Lee Harvey your ass

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Easy there, prez or I will Lee Harvey your ass

Good thing I don't drive a convertible.

 

[Confucamus]

lol you're just making up your own laws as you go I see.

Do explain.

So then he's directly responsible for his accomplice disarming himself before cops shot him?

Yup. Get this through your head: If you, either by yourself or with an accomplice(s), decide to arm yourself and go rob a store or house, then you are directly responsible and it should be that way. Your irresponsible actions, a person lost their life. Whether it's a cop, a store owner, a pedestrian outside, etc. He deserves life. Time to make an example out of him.

 

[badascan]

anyone committing armed robbery is forfeiting their life imo... now, if the cops were looking to murder people then that's a different story...

 

[Clifford_Harris]

Do explain.



Yup. Get this through your head: If you, either by yourself or with an accomplice(s), decide to arm yourself and go rob a store or house, then you are directly responsible and it should be that way. Your irresponsible actions, a person lost their life. Whether it's a cop, a store owner, a pedestrian outside, etc. He deserves life. Time to make an example out of him.

You need to define the word "directly" because what you describe is indirectly, the person directly responsible would be the ones that pulled the triggers.