[Video] Black teen shot in the back by police

[nhbbear]

Sorry I don't consider that a death sentence, nor something that warrants being shot in the back.

Also, when i'm brandishing a firearm and get shot in the back, I definitely put it in my pants between my knees and my ankles. I'm super fast like that.

Wel, the Supreme Court disagrees with you

 

[JSN]

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.

yeah that's my thing. There's nothing that i know of to contradict that the officer didn't see this upstanding citizen's gun, which he was proven in possession of while committing a felony or two or three, so I'm having a pretty hard time being up and arms about this.

Not saying this is some Michael Brown level total vindication, but I don't think there's any evidence to even say the cop should receive more training.

 

[nhbbear]

Unfortunately, as with a lot of these cases people seem to crucify both parties with minimal information. I think it is important for people to be able to listen to the 911 call as well as the dispatch message as well as any other cam footage from other officers and cam footage that lead in to this. The video seems to start after initial contact between police and Ward and his accomplice. I would like to know if Durocher and other officers were aware of the fact that a weapon was present/was used during the robbery as Durocher already had his weapon drawn at the start of the video or if officers saw Ward or his accomplice with a weapon and was the reason why weapons were drawn.

That being said, I have little sympathy at this time for Ward seeing as how he is a felon, robbing a family; I leave the weapon possession and assault on a police officer out as we do not have evidence of such at this point with these articles and the four others that I read in relation to this story.

Burglary in progress? I roll with my gun out. And I rarely take my gun out.

I agree about the assault charge-we simply don’t see it in the video. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, though.

As for the weapon possession, I disagree. The officers find the .45 while cuffing and searching him. And he admits that he had a gun, but says he didn’t point it at anyone in an interview.

 

[nhbbear]

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

You are wrong, my friend. Burglary is a violent crime. Being armed with a firearm increases the danger posed to the community. He does not need to fire a shot to be considered a threat to the community. And a reasonable person would most certainly see it that way.

 

[chubbman]

He was robbing someone’s home while armed... fuck him, police should’ve followed the double tap rule.

 

[Culombo]

the typical cucked pussies defending an armed robber

 

[Culombo]

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

looks like a child who plays video games living out his fantasy

 

[Fedorable]

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.

An armed felon running towards police counts too.

Wel, the Supreme Court disagrees with you

R.I.P. Judge Harry T. Stone

 

[SaiWa]

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.

You’re making part of this up...

Officer actually shot twice first. after the suspect was over the fence he yelled out “he has a gun”... then he shot twice again and hit him in the back..

You have a problem watching a video and then interpreting what happened???

 

[Madmick]

See my response about TN vs Garner.

I did.

I was under the impression that an "immediate threat" was interpreted to mean that he immediately intended harm to the nearby community, and not that we were presuming simply because he has already committed a crime that exposes the community to such a dangerous threat that he will repeat this offense in the future. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it also strikes me as problematically precursive thinking.

Nevertheless, if our law has determined that it's okay to kill these sorts of violent criminal on sight, regardless of whether they're literally threatening an officer or a citizen, immediately (and I use that term in its proper sense), then I'll allay my concern.

I don't care about seeing violent thieves maimed or killed so long as it conforms to our democratic laws.

 

[Scheme]

Criminal gets shot while doing something illegal. Why create a thread for this?

 

[JSN]

I did.

I was under the impression that an "immediate threat" was interpreted to mean that he immediately intended harm to the nearby community, and not that we were presuming simply because he has already committed a crime that exposes the community to such a dangerous threat that he will repeat this offense in the future. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it also strikes me as problematically precursive thinking.

Nevertheless, if our law has determined that it's okay to kill these sorts of violent criminal on sight, regardless of whether they're literally threatening an officer or a citizen, immediately (and I use that term in its proper sense), then I'll allay my concern.

I don't care about seeing violent thieves maimed or killed so long as it conforms to our democratic laws.

it doesn't mean you have to have already been engaged in a shootout, or drawing a gun or something like that. They have latitude to say that an armed, fleeing felon presents a reasonably high risk of endangering the public and/or officers by engaging in a shootout, setting an ambush, taking a hostage, etc that they can use deadly force while they flee.

 

[Madmick]

it doesn't mean you have to have already been engaged in a shootout, or drawing a gun or something like that. They have latitude to say that an armed, fleeing felon presents a reasonably high risk of endangering the public and/or officers by engaging in a shootout, setting an ambush, taking a hostage, etc that they can use deadly force while they flee.

Those would seem to me be conditions that arise from the pursuit itself, so I'm not terribly fond of these precedents.

It's definitely an area of the law where reform isn't unreasonably placed on the table as an option.

 

[Gangsters_Paradise]

When did he assault a police officer? I see he is being charged with assault.

didn't you see how fast he was running away he assaulted that officer with his speed

 

[JSN]

Those would seem to me be conditions that arise from the pursuit itself, so I'm not terribly fond of these precedents.

It's definitely an area of the law where reform isn't unreasonably placed on the table as an option.

I don't really feel that way. I don't think it's reasonable for police to not pursue people caught committing dangerous crimes because it could lead to a confrontation.

I do think there is a decent probability in this case that the officer didn't actually see a gun and fired at the fleeing suspect and got lucky that he was carrying, but he was carrying so fuck him.

Kind of akin to how someone can sucker punch someone and they're unhurt and they get a misdemeanor charge and someone else can sucker punch with the same intent and the person drops and hits their head and dies.

Unlucky for puncher # 2 but when you play scumbag roulette sometimes you roll 00.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

You are wrong, my friend. Burglary is a violent crime. Being armed with a firearm increases the danger posed to the community. He does not need to fire a shot to be considered a threat to the community. And a reasonable person would most certainly see it that way.

No, they wouldnt. One could be armed with a weapon in their waistband, or they could have it aimed at someone. Huge degrees of seperation there regarding imminent danger.

Hard to aim with your back turned, just saying

 

[Phelly2]

It never looks good to shoot someone in the back, but given that the suspect is armed with a gun and fleeing the scene of the crime, he does pose an extremely high risk to the officer and the public at large.

In my opinion, it's hard to say if this was justified.

But to anyone playing the race card here: you're stupid. Period. Identity politics is harmful enough without the legions of ideologically possessed lemmings whose one-size-fits-all response for every situation is "he was shot because he's black!" Think critically for once in your life. Jesus.

 

[machidafan99]

pulled the trigger way too quick here it seems (I say it seems because we don't know what transpired just beforehand).

juxtaposed against how the Canadian cops handled the incel van driver the difference is stark.

 

[legkicktko]

I must be part of the weird group who thinks if one commits an armed robbery, one opens themselves up to this kind of thing.

If he was walking down the street or something, that's one thing. When you conspire to do shit like this, this is one of those risk/reward deals. It could have easily been the homeowner who shot him.

 

[nhbbear]

No, they wouldnt. One could be armed with a weapon in their waistband, or they could have it aimed at someone. Huge degrees of seperation there regarding imminent danger.

Hard to aim with your back turned, just saying

The nature of the crime is violent. Burglary is considered a violent felony. He did so armed. He fled from police. He posed a risk to the community.

Tennessee v Garner rules are met.

The graham v Connor factors are met. This was reasonable force.

Sources. Note-I don’t normally use wiki, but this is a pretty solid entry.

http://m.policemag.com/article/2755/understanding-graham-v-connor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner