mustangkiller
Regular Member
.....RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!
Sorry, I had to.
.....RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!
SNIP To prevent to escape of anyone a cop reasonably believes is a felon that cop can shoot him/her in the back.
Not since 1985.
Tennessee vs Garner:
"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so." 471 US 11.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
It's hard to believe that the supreme court had to rule that someone who was not a physical threat to anyone could not be shot in the back if they try to run.... But that's where we're at I guess.
10 Pages in and you still don't know what you're talking about. Only 1 officer used deadly force, not two. No wonder you guys are so bad at this.No, I don't think so. I think most still hold it's unreasonable for two able bodied, highly trained and courageous police officers to resort to deadly force against a one armed, one legged mentally handicapped man in a wheelchair. I dunno if that's even an argument. I believe that falls under 'somewhat informed opinion".
There are some things you just can't fix.Don't look like you've had much success in changing many of those opinions.
1. Florida statutes have nothing to due with a case in Houston776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Florida statute since Shiltz is from Florida, NOPE nothing there about one step above. So if the suspect as a gun, does the cop call time out to get a bazooka?
a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned.
~SNIPPED~10 Pages in and you still don't know what you're talking about. Only 1 officer used deadly force, not two. No wonder you guys are so bad at this.
Revisionist history, and the blood hasn't dried yet?
The officer shot Claunch in the head, saying he feared the amputee was going to stab another police officer the man had backed up against the wall with his wheelchair. Claunch, who neighbors say liked to draw, had been waving a silver ballpoint pen.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...t-lives-of-amputee-police-officer-3905524.php
Authorities say Claunch cornered a responding officer with his wheelchair and waved a shiny object in his hand. The other responding officer, fearing for his partner's life and his own safety, shot Claunch in the head, police said.
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/sep/27/amputee-shot-by-cops-had-mental-illness/
The police were responding to a call from frightened aides saying Claunch had become aggressive. Claunch had cornered one of the officers, making stabbing motions with the pen, when the other officer shot him from behind.
http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/columnists/article_0946e93c-0c27-11e2-979c-0019bb30f31a.html
Looks like the head count on the number of police this Ninja-turned-wheelchair-bound-gladiator overwhelmed was ......two.
The article didn't say anything about overwhelming two cops. The language you use sounds just like the stuff the antis use...
Only one cop was allegedly 'cornered.'
What else ya got? (sounds like nothing)
From the sounds of it you still 'don't get it.'If the cops weren't overwhelmed, one of the two should not have shot him. I think you finally get it.
I did, you simply failed to comprehend what you read.....if you read "it."<snip> Cite?
let me break it down for ya, in terms you can understand. I can not justify shooting a criminal in the back as he runs from my home after he committed a felony in my home or committed a felony against my person. i could try to justify it, but I do not have the advantage of using a reasonable test as a "civilian."OC for ME; 11:20 AM said:Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned. <snip>
For Missouri.....likely similar statutes are available for use by a cop when employing lethal force on crazy dudes in wheelchairs who just happen to be without all of their appendages wielding a ballpoint pen.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000046.HTM <snip>
SNIP Only 1 officer used deadly force, not two.
I did, you simply failed to comprehend what you read.....if you read "it."
let me break it down for ya, in terms you can understand. I can not justify shooting a criminal in the back as he runs from my home after he committed a felony in my home or committed a felony against my person. i could try to justify it, but I do not have the advantage of using a reasonable test as a "civilian."
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25moapp133.html
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Samuel Julian, Appellant.
Lewis, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.
"founded on the common law rule, which makes it the duty of every citizen to arrest, or aid in the arrest, of every felon. In so doing, he is considered, for the time, as engaged in the public service, and entitled to all the protection afforded to the regularly appointed ministers of justice."
I did, you simply failed to comprehend what you read.....if you read "it."
let me break it down for ya, in terms you can understand. I can not justify shooting a criminal in the back as he runs from my home after he committed a felony in my home or committed a felony against my person. i could try to justify it, but I do not have the advantage of using a reasonable test as a "civilian."
Or, you failed to review the entire chapter of RSMo 563. No big deal.You said: "Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned."
Then you provided a cite to Missouri Law for use of force while making an arrest. This doesn't back up your claim, nor is it a cite to your claim.
Since you seem to be a fan of Missouri law, let's look at a Missouri court opinion on the topic at hand, you know, 'civilians' not having the same protection under law for use of force as police, or as you called it -"a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned."
I think you failed to comprehend your own cite! Thanks for "trying to break it down for me," but no thanks! (The only thing I could trust you to break down is the awful grammar and spelling from your homeboys in this thread!)
There is no distinction made in the statute between a misdemeanor arrest or a felony arrest...... (2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or (Automobile? There is no requirement that the cop has to harm or kill anyone when he uses lethal force it is that he did use lethal force. Whether the force actually worked is irrelevant.)
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
Nope, not even for murder in my view. I have not gotten a go ahead from my lawyer to shoot a perp in the back where I could not prove that the perp continued to pose a threat of bodily harm or death to me or mine here in Missouri.....yes, even after he killed one of mine. I might get a sympathy not guilty from a jury, and I might even get a thanks from the cops and a courtesy "we ain't gunna prosecute" from the DA. But there is no garauntee of that based on the language used in the statute(s).If the felony was murder, you would 100% be able to justify shooting in the back ...
Or, you failed to review the entire chapter of RSMo 563. No big deal.
OC for ME said:Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned.
OC for ME said:The statute provides me a much lower standard to meet if I plug a perp in my home.
I cited the sections of the law that supported my claim that cops here in Missouri, and likely in Florida also, have a much lower standard to meet when using lethal force.....my claim.....cite provided.1. I do not have time to review all of your states laws - especially when it is off topic.
2. You didn't cite the entire chapter of RSMo 563 as the cite for your claim. You cited a little piece and I responded to that. No big deal.
I'm starting to have a hard time following what you're trying to argue now. I'm having an even harder time trying to figure out how your state laws apply to the thread's topic.
The vast majority of shoots by cops are no-brainers and those cops likely deserve a medal. This specific instance does not fall into that category in my view.