[Video] Black teen shot in the back by police

[Patrick Carey]

Portsmouth needs to improve their hiring practices. Everyone knows cans with jailhouse tattoos make trigger happy cops. Just look at this can.

That shooting was absolutely justified, tattoos or not daniel shaver was being a drunken idiot

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

This is photoshopped. look at his hands.

What's the point of this?

It’s a notorious image, I assumed we all knew it’s photoshopped...

The point is the mother’s words in the article reminded me of the words on the sign.

 

[Falsedawn]

That shooting was absolutely justified, tattoos or not daniel shaver was being a drunken idiot

Fucking lol, way to make it obvious you're a dipshit.

For all paying attention, Shaver was the "keep your hands up with your legs crossed and crawl over here" shooting. That officer was a supreme asshat.

 

[Revolver]

That shooting was absolutely justified, tattoos or not daniel shaver was being a drunken idiot

lmao

 

[HunterSdVa29]

even if they're armed, you can't shoot cats in the back as clearly the imminent danger has at least temporarily passed

ROE's and EOF policies exist for a reason

Gotta be honest, if we had the same ROEs in Afghanistan that apparently cops do in inner cities, we'd all have 100 confirmed kills

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I din't know if you know how pants work, but they have these holes at the bottom of them that tend to let things through. That is to say that if you're jumping a fence, something weighing roughly say...4 pounds probably isn't going to stay in there.

But hey, you don't see anything wrong with shooting people in the back. That's why you're a bootlicker.

Read painislife's quote and get back to me kiddo

Also they did find the gun nearly right away. The 1 cop says its in his waistband the other says I see it. It isn't until they roll him over that the gun disappears for a few seconds (slides down his leg)

 

[Roaming East]

i was in the area when it happened. Im ok with this shooting. Fuck thieves, and fuck gun toting ghetto ass gangsta wannabe's.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

even if they're armed, you can't shoot cats in the back as clearly the imminent danger has at least temporarily passed

ROE's and EOF policies exist for a reason

Gotta be honest, if we had the same ROEs in Afghanistan that apparently cops do in inner cities, we'd all have 100 confirmed kills

Sorry, but cops can shoot in the back. In the streets someone running away from you is running toward someone else. If a “reasonable person” would conclude that this armed person running away is likely to harm someone else if you don’t stop them then you’re clear to shoot them in the back. And that is the policy as decided by the Supreme Court. It’s not Afghanistan where this dude is running back to his goat herd, he’s running wild in a city filled with people he could shoot or kill while he’s a desperate felon.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Sorry, but cops can shoot in the back. In the streets someone running away from you is running toward someone else. If a “reasonable person” would conclude that this armed person running away is likely to harm someone else if you don’t stop them then you’re clear to shoot them in the back. And that is the policy as decided by the Supreme Court. It’s not Afghanistan where this dude is running back to his goat herd, he’s running wild in a city filled with people he could shoot or kill while he’s a desperate felon.

is the weapon raised at the high ready? what if you're in an allie? nobody is around?

b/c if not, then no, that should be a clear and flagrant violation of escalation of force procedures

also I was smackdab in Kabul w/ like 4 Million people, there were no goat herds to run to. It was straight up urban warfare

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

is the weapon raised at the high ready? what if you're in an ally? nobody is around?

b/c if not, then no, that should be a clear and flagrant violation of escalation of force procedures

I’m trying to explain to you that the escalation of force procedures are different in civilian policing than in combat. You can disagree with whether they SHOULD be, but take that up with the Supreme Court. I am aware of what the law states.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I’m trying to explain to you that the escalation of force procedures are different in civilian policing than in combat. You can disagree with whether they SHOULD be, but take that up with the Supreme Court. I am aware of what the law states.

there still has to be an imminent danger component
most reasonable citizens would not count 'running away w/o firing the weapon' as imminent danger, in fact it's the exact opposite

works the same w/ castle doctrine/stand your ground laws. You can't start chasing them off your property and shooting them in the streets coldblooded, armed or not

 

[cincymma79]

Not unless he pointed it at them.

Yeah they have to wait until they’ve been shot In a vital area and are mentally wounded to fire. Other wise the guy didn’t mean to kill them when they shot and they are the devil.

Or


The guy sees someone reach for something and shoots so he doesn’t get shot

Can’t watch the video now but if he did see a gun and he’s running from the police it’s not a huge logical step for he test to happen. Don’t worry though I’m sure you’ll be objective until the investigation is over and will accept whatever come of it

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

there still has to be an imminent danger component
most reasonable citizens would not count 'running away w/o firing the weapon' as imminent danger, in fact it's the exact opposite

works the same w/ castle doctrine/stand your ground laws. You can't start chasing them off your property and shooting them in the streets coldblooded, armed or not

Right. A “reasonable person” would have to think that imminent danger exists. To someone, not necessarily the officer firing. I don’t think this video or article give enough information to whether or not that’s the case.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Right. A “reasonable person” would have to think that imminent danger exists. To someone, not necessarily the officer firing. I don’t think this video or article give enough information to whether or not that’s the case.

oh no doubt, I was more commenting on shooting in the back/fleeing victims in general

There are VERY few circumstances where that can be justified

 

[cincymma79]

Some of them are actually funny tho

My brother was doing rounds in the NICU and there was a baby born premature and crack addicted, his name was SEXAY HANSUMNESS

If you can't see the humor in that then I don't know what to tell you other than you might have some kind of emotional problem

I have seen so much worse

Phetus

Klamidya


No really

Hop on any birthing center for a few months and get back to me. I only did nicu for a year before going back to adults. Fuck nicu

 

[Patrick Carey]

Fucking lol, way to make it obvious you're a dipshit.

For all paying attention, Shaver was the "keep your hands up with your legs crossed and crawl over here" shooting. That officer was a supreme asshat.

Yeah man, you didnt leave out any context lol.

with him being drunk enough to think reaching for his pants was smart, to the fact that the police call was because of someone being seen with what appeared to be a rifle, no context at all

lmao

Concession noted

 

[nhbbear]

Ok, so we have a burglary call in which the suspect emerges from the house with a handgun in his hand, and then he runs.

Would we all agree that burglary is a felony and a violent crime? Would we all agree that the .45 caliber firearm this young man was carrying was not for legal purposes and posed a threat to the community at large?

There is case law that perfectly covers this incident.

Tennessee vs Garner is the “fleeing felon rule” the case goes like this: two cops are called to an unoccupied house for a burglary in progress. Now, most police will treat such a call as a trespassing and not felony burglary, which is defined as the breaking and entering of a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime.

The officers arrive and scare a black teenager from the house. He runs and tries to climb over the back fence when one of the officers shoots him in the head and cites the “fleeing felon rule.” At that point, police could shoot any fleeing felon to prevent escape.

The results: now police shootings are viewed as a fourth amendment seizure and any seizure must weigh the defendant’s fourth amendment rights vs the danger posed to the community and the governments interest in capture of said subject.

Basically, this means that in order to shoot a fleeing subject, the officer must in good faith, believe the subject to be a threat to the community if allowed to escape.

In this case, I think it is incredibly clear that an armed burglar that is fleeing does in fact pose a threat to the community. This was 100% a good shoot and a good shot to boot. My only issue is that the back drop of the shooting was not clear.

 

[nhbbear]

A gun wasn't waved, thats bullshit...atleast in that clip.



But if he indeed have a gun, idk.......Shit could've ended bad...the dude was around houses, could've ended bad for a civilian.


So the cop got lucky that he saw the gun? is he full of shit? did they plant the gun? Or does he have good eye vision and saw it at the waist?


Guy played a stupid game and is gonna lose, he dun goofd up.

What you see in person is so much more than the cameras pick up. The officer was yelling that he had a gun before he actually shot him, then they say “he has a .45 in his waistband.” Then when interviewed in jail, he says he never pointed the gun at anybody. Your theory that the gun was planted is bullshit. I didn’t see any point where he pointed the gun or assaulted a police officer, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen either before the shooting, or off camera.

 

[nhbbear]

This stuff is beyond getting out of hand. It is flat out open season on AA young men. And you dont even need a license.

The kid showed no aggression towards the cop and he just shoots him in the back. Yet we have the typical crew in here automatically saying he deserved it

This is a horrible troll job because no one that posts here is this stupid. There are plenty of people out there that would take this stupid ass stance and double down with it, they just don’t post here.

 

[nhbbear]

He was just gunning for the kid from the second he saw him.

There was never any indication he was threatened, that I can see, and while I'm not upset that a gun-wielding burglar caught some bullets in the back, I am upset about the fashion in which it appears to have been done. These aren't the rules of pursuit. Furthermore, to any who are concerned for the safety of people around this suburb, he was just openly firing into a fence, beyond which he couldn't see, and then into a backyard after the kid.

Great shot, but that didn't look safe to me, and there was no indication any civilians in the immediate vicinity were in danger.

If they were the man endangering them most directly was this police officer.

See my response about TN vs Garner.