Crime What did the cops do wrong today Megathread Vol. 6 ? (who knows, lots of cop threads)

[Scrody]

I am going to disagree with this based on what I actually saw.

The suspect fell on the ground and rolled. He had no chance to make any other moves. He technically isn't a threat at that moment. He was shot based on recognition (suspect was wearing dark clothes). Had he dropped on the ground, raised his hands up and kept on running (like the other guy) you think he would have not been shot?

Sad to say but cops are not trained to shoot in response to an actual threat. They're not waiting to be shot at. I personally see no difference between one suspect running away with his hands up vs a suspect falling on the ground and rolling around when it comes to threat level. The difference between the two was the cops were looking for someone in dark clothes. They could have easily shot the other guy (as you admitted that it was crazy that he wasn't shot).

He had plenty of chances to make other moves, you're acting like the gun cares if he's prone, running or standing. He crawls towards the gun after he's shot. If he'd thrown the gun away and ran, then we're talking possibilities. I actually saw this video three weeks ago. The amount of excuses you're making is ridiculous.

I mean it isn't rare for anybody from the hood (black, latino, whatever) to flee from cops when approached (especially if they just happen to be holding an illegal weapon).

Do you know how stupidly insane that makes you sound?

 

[nhbbear]

No it does matter. He could have just been an innocent black guy with a legal gun who's afraid of cops. That ain't exactly a rare thing in the United States. It is unlikely so hopefully the ballistics and evidence will prove that Franklin was the shooter. But let's say for shits and giggles it wasn't Franklin and it just so happens to be another black guy in dark attire that was the real shooter and successfully got away. Then the cops just killed an innocent man because he was scared and ran away from cops. I don't give a rat's ass about established case law if that's the truth.

It would be a terrible tragedy and mistake if he wasn’t the shooter, and you may not give a damn about the case law, but it has to be judged under those conditions and if they don’t, they are violating the officer’s rights. Personally, I think he was most likely the shooter and evidence will prove that, but it may be inconclusive and again, that doesn’t matter because the case law prevents judgement against the cops using 20/20 hindsight. They had an armed guy fitting the description of the shooter that is fleeing while carrying a gun. Good shoot

 

[nhbbear]

I am going to disagree with this based on what I actually saw.

The suspect fell on the ground and rolled. He had no chance to make any other moves. He technically isn't a threat at that moment. He was shot based on recognition (suspect was wearing dark clothes). Had he dropped on the ground, raised his hands up and kept on running (like the other guy) you think he would have not been shot?

Sad to say but cops are not trained to shoot in response to an actual threat. They're not waiting to be shot at. I personally see no difference between one suspect running away with his hands up vs a suspect falling on the ground and rolling around when it comes to threat level. The difference between the two was the cops were looking for someone in dark clothes. They could have easily shot the other guy (as you admitted that it was crazy that he wasn't shot).

Him being armed with a firearm is the difference besides the other guy putting his hands up

 

[SaiWa]

He had plenty of chances to make other moves, you're acting like the gun cares if he's prone, running or standing. He crawls towards the gun after he's shot. If he'd thrown the gun away and ran, then we're talking possibilities. I actually saw this video three weeks ago. The amount of excuses you're making is ridiculous.

Do you know how stupidly insane that makes you sound?

I don't know what you were watching but he was shot practically as he landed/fell on the ground. He was still running away. You want to believe he is a confirmed threat at this moment that's you. I see differently and it's not an excuse.

The only insanity I see is that we are a culture that evolved into accepting the shooting of people that are fleeing (regardless of whether they are armed or not).

 

[Rob Battisti]

I don't know what you were watching but he was shot practically as he landed/fell on the ground. He was still running away. You want to believe he is a confirmed threat at this moment that's you. I see differently and it's not an excuse.

The only insanity I see is that we are a culture that evolved into accepting the shooting of people that are fleeing (regardless of whether they are armed or not).

You think it’s insanity to shoot someone fleeing who is armed and was just shooting at people?

 

[SaiWa]

It would be a terrible tragedy and mistake if he wasn’t the shooter, and you may not give a damn about the case law, but it has to be judged under those conditions and if they don’t, they are violating the officer’s rights. Personally, I think he was most likely the shooter and evidence will prove that, but it may be inconclusive and again, that doesn’t matter because the case law prevents judgement against the cops using 20/20 hindsight. They had an armed guy fitting the description of the shooter that is fleeing while carrying a gun. Good shoot

Yeah i mean that sounds great to you but tell that to his family if he turns out to be an innocent law abiding gun owner that was simply scared of cops. Unlikely as I've said many times but if it turns out to be that way you can't blame the public for thinking cops are plain trigger happy lunatics.

 

[TardStrong]

Did you notice in the video how the guy without a gun who had his hands up and was complying didnt get shot? That was weird huh?

 

[Woldog]

Yes, they are all over the city.

Clearly a good shoot. This didn’t get a lot of attention in the city TBH.

@Woldog 6th strikes again!

It seems like the place to be

 

[SaiWa]

You think it’s insanity to shoot someone fleeing who is armed and was just shooting at people?

You obviously didn't read any of my previous post. The problem is he could be another black guy dressed in dark with a gun that just happens to be in the area. Unlikely (again) as I said many times but he was fleeing and he got shot doing it. If he turns out to be the wrong guy then all hell is going to break loose again.

 

[Scrody]

I don't know what you were watching but he was shot practically as he landed/fell on the ground. He was still running away. You want to believe he is a confirmed threat at this moment that's you. I see differently and it's not an excuse.

The only insanity I see is that we are a culture that evolved into accepting the shooting of people that are fleeing (regardless of whether they are armed or not).

He had a gun and like six cops after him yelling at him to drop the gun. As long as he's armed, he's a threat to the public and them at that moment. You want cops to get shot before they shoot, that's fine. That's not reality though.

 

[Scrody]

Yeah i mean that sounds great to you but tell that to his family if he turns out to be an innocent law abiding gun owner that was simply scared of cops. Unlikely as I've said many times but if it turns out to be that way you can't blame the public for thinking cops are plain trigger happy lunatics.

He's not law abiding if he's running away from police, brandishing a weapon.

 

[SaiWa]

Him being armed with a firearm is the difference besides the other guy putting his hands up

Just because he raised his arms up he doesn't have a firearm? Is that the sign that confirms it for sure? So suspects who have firearms have never raised their arms up? The cops disregarded him because he was wearing clothes that did not match the suspect. Let's not get it twisted here...

 

[SaiWa]

He had a gun and like six cops after him yelling at him to drop the gun. As long as he's armed, he's a threat to the public and them at that moment. You want cops to get shot before they shoot, that's fine. That's not reality though.

You do realize this happened in Texas where anyone can get an open carry gun yes? LOL.

 

[nhbbear]

Yeah i mean that sounds great to you but tell that to his family if he turns out to be an innocent law abiding gun owner that was simply scared of cops. Unlikely as I've said many times but if it turns out to be that way you can't blame the public for thinking cops are plain trigger happy lunatics.

I absolutely would tell that family and the lawyers. I don’t think it will be necessary when he is confirmed as the shooter. And I would blame the public for claiming cops are trigger happy lunatics because the case law backs the officers and if they can’t handle that, fuck em

 

[Scrody]

You do realize this happened in Texas where anyone can get an open carry gun yes? LOL.

You don't understand what you're talking about, you understand that right? LOL

 

[jx820]

TN v Garner is the case that deals with a fleeing felon and when police can shooting a fleeing subject. Basically, it says that police can only shoot a fleeing suspect when there is an immediate threat to the officers or the public.

Without reading too much into this specific case, TN v Garner really comes down to the substance and immediacy of the threat.

Is posession of a firearm on it's own sufficient if it's not being weilded? What if it's already been used and the the nature of the crime the officer is investigating suggests a high risk of violent threat? This is where Graham v Connor factors in with the due process test objective reasonableness as opposed to malice (see also Johnson v Glick).

This seems like a bad shoot if the guy didn't actually have a gun, but the reasonableness of assuming that risk will be upheld in court.

 

[nhbbear]

Just because he raised his arms up he doesn't have a firearm? Is that the sign that confirms it for sure? So suspects who have firearms have never raised their arms up? The cops disregarded him because he was wearing clothes that did not match the suspect. Let's not get it twisted here...

Yes. Because he surrendered and didn’t have a firearm while the other guy was attempting to flee while armed with a handgun. I agree the description matters, but the gun and actions matter more

 

[Scrody]

Yes. Because he surrendered and didn’t have a firearm while the other guy was attempting to flee while armed with a handgun. I agree the description matters, but the gun and actions matter more

He's living in fantasy land where you can run with a pistol in your hand and the police don't bug you for it. "lol sorry bro, didn't realize you were doing cardio tonight, did you see the guy who got shot down the road? Craazzzyyy. Have a good night!"

 

[SaiWa]

I absolutely would tell that family and the lawyers. I don’t think it will be necessary when he is confirmed as the shooter. And I would blame the public for claiming cops are trigger happy lunatics because the case law backs the officers and if they can’t handle that, fuck em

so you'd do that even if he turned out not to be the shooter? that's why a large portion of the populace have a general mistrust and hatred for cops. if it turns out to be a case of mistaken identity then so what? fuck 'em? That's not the attitude you're supposed to have considering the historical mistreatment and grown mistrust between cops and black people. But what do i know? i am Asian and i only hear this BS when i am drinking with my buddies.

 

[nhbbear]

Without reading too much into this specific case, TN v Garner really comes down to the substance and immediacy of the threat.

Is posession of a firearm on it's own sufficient if it's not being weilded? What if it's already been used and the the nature of the crime the officer is investigating suggests a high risk of violent threat? This is where Graham v Connor factors in with the objective reasonableness test (see also Johnson v Glick).

The good faith argument of Glick does factor in here. Thanks, I forgot that one