Politics

[BJH65]

I still wanta see the scotus decision that says an LEO can’t stand in front of a car, or anywhere else for that matter…….

I don’t think the courts will be able to take into account every specific scenario. The tactics LEO choose are going to be based on their training, experience and department policy.

 

[John Wasmuth]

I don’t think the courts will be able to take into account every specific scenario. The tactics LEO choose are going to be based on their training, experience and department policy.

That’s why I’m saying rifleman’s claim of a usc decision on where an officer can stand is total bs, no such decision exists.

 

[HuntingGold]

@BJH65 I'm glad you posted.

Its easy to sit and watch video over and over again, from multiple angles, and pass judgment. However, there are so many factors involved and those factors you referenced are very important. I still haven't come to a conclusion on this case yet. We need officer statements, witness statements, reconstruction and more.
My last two years of my career, I spent countless hours reviewing use of force cases. I learned there is so much more than a video or multiple videos.

For my viewpoint at this point in time: The officer was justified in his use of force, however many training issues need to be addressed. Particularly, if he had been drug by a vehicle before, why did he place himself in this position? Also issues with the other officers on scene, before and after the use of force. That is where I sit, and more evidence could arrive that could sway that opinion.

 

[Rubberhead]

Well aware after spending the better part of 21 years as a Texas Peace Officer, just wanting to see what rifleman was talking about………. Which I’m calling BS on. Having been “the officer involved” I’m pretty lean on usc decisions even though I retired in 04.

Understood. Knowing that there are bad apples in every bunch, I nearly universally stand with all LEOs. My best friend is a cop, most people don't have a clue what these folks face on a daily basis.

 

[HuntingGold]

My last day on the job...

 

[BJH65]

@BJH65 I'm glad you posted.

Its easy to sit and watch video over and over again, from multiple angles, and pass judgment. However, there are so many factors involved and those factors you referenced are very important. I still haven't come to a conclusion on this case yet. We need officer statements, witness statements, reconstruction and more.
My last two years of my career, I spent countless hours reviewing use of force cases. I learned there is so much more than a video or multiple videos.

For my viewpoint at this point in time: The officer was justified in his use of force, however many training issues need to be addressed. Particularly, if he had been drug by a vehicle before, why did he place himself in this position? Also issues with the other officers on scene, before and after the use of force. That is where I sit, and more evidence could arrive that could sway that opinion.

This type of lethal force scenario involving vehicles was commonplace for us. Certainly, the tactics merit a review. After every critical incident there are lessons learned and things we can always improve upon to minimize the risk to our brother and sister officers in the future.

 

[BJH65]

My last day on the job...
View attachment 738155

I never ate a donut in uniform! I didn’t want to hear any stupid comments from the public! Great pic, congrats on a job well done!

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[Aaron N]

I'm an "Eye for an eye" guy. I think Trump is too.
I hope that ICE continues to lay the smack on these radical and violent agitators. ICE can't do anything with less publicity. They are constantly under the microscope, being followed, and media cameras on them 24/7.
Things are coming to a boil in this country, and these radicals are going to regret who they pick a fight with. Playing nice guy doesn't work anymore
The strong survive, The weak get swept into the dust bin of irrelevancy.
Watching narco terrorists getting blown to bits is entertaining. It's mostly the liberals that have a problem with it

Matthew 5:38-48 since you’re a good Christian

 

[Rubberhead]

Matthew 5:38-48 since you’re a good Christian

Eye for an eye is old testament...maybe he's Jewish....

 

[Brent in Az]

Matthew 5:38-48 since you’re a good Christian

Are you familiar with the term "Backseat driver"?

 

[Aaron N]

Eye for an eye is old testament...maybe he's Jewish....

Yes I realize that, but I’m playing the odds of probability

 

[Aaron N]

Are you familiar with the term "Backseat driver"?

Enlighten me please

 

[Brent in Az]

Eye for an eye is old testament...maybe he's Jewish....

I'm not Jewish, and it has nothing to do with the biblical terms.

 

[Brent in Az]

Enlighten me please

Figure it out.

 

[Aaron N]

Figure it out.

I’m good

 

[Hank2211]

I still wanta see the scotus decision that says an LEO can’t stand in front of a car, or anywhere else for that matter…….

People are using Barnes v. Felix (605 US 73) in this context.

The decision doesn’t directly address liability when law enforcement officers intentionally puts themselves in harm’s way and then use deadly force to avert the foreseeable event, but it does address a related issue.

In Barnes, the officer jumped on the doorsill of a moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming that he was responding to an immediate threat to his life. Lower courts had come up with a “moment of threat” doctrine, which held that in determining an officer’s conduct, you could only look at the precise moment of the threat and the reaction, and could not consider any prior events. The Supreme Court held (unanimously) that this analysis was incorrect. In assessing an officers use of deadly force, the Court had to consider the “totality of circumstances” rather than the “moment of threat.”

You could perhaps see how that might arise in the Minneapolis context.

FWIS, I have a couple of law degrees, but none of them are from the US! Just trying to be responsive.

 

[John Wasmuth]

People are using Barnes v. Felix (605 US 73) in this context.

The decision doesn’t directly address liability when law enforcement officers intentionally puts themselves in harm’s way and then use deadly force to avert the foreseeable event, but it does address a related issue.

In Barnes, the officer jumped on the doorsill of a moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming that he was responding to an immediate threat to his life. Lower courts had come up with a “moment of threat” doctrine, which held that in determining an officer’s conduct, you could only look at the precise moment of the threat and the reaction, and could not consider any prior events. The Supreme Court held (unanimously) that this analysis was incorrect. In assessing an officers use of deadly force, the Court had to consider the “totality of circumstances” rather than the “moment of threat.”

You could perhaps see how that might arise in the Minneapolis context.

FWIS, I have a couple of law degrees, but none of them are from the US! Just trying to be responsive.

It would be stretching it a great deal to make it fit.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Baltimore county police officer Amy Caprio was killed in a very similar situation. She fired one round then was run down.

View from her body cam before being killed.

 

[coreydb]

My last day on the job...
View attachment 738155

I love it! You went total Schwarzenegger here! "talk to the hand"