cop kills double amputee in wheelchair

[mustangkiller]

I dunno wolf. I found this:


View attachment 9349




.

.....RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!

Sorry, I had to.

 

[WalkingWolf]

776.012 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?

 

[OC for ME]

Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned. If cops had the same standard to meet as We The People cops might.....might be subjected to the justice system just like We The People.....which they are not, by the way.

To prevent to escape of anyone a cop reasonably believes is a felon that cop can shoot him/her in the back.

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

Though, I like how the statute uses the term "defendant" when talking about cops gunning down unarmed felons, reasonably that is. I thought you had to be arrested before you became a defendant. Typically it is determined to be a good shoot and within the confines of department policy.

 

[Citizen]

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

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

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.

 

[Citizen]

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.

Oh, not that hard to believe when you consider who was doing the shooting. The same bunch had been running around stopping and frisking people for years without legal authority and claiming such was not a seizure for the purposes of the 4th Amendment just because they weren't actually arresting the frisk-ees. It took SCOTUS to knock some decency into them with Terry v Ohio.

SCOTUS can get hilarious, though. A recent SCOTUS case reinforced the trespass angle of 4A searches, reinstating the trespass test that was used prior to Katz and the whole expectation of privacy thing. However, as pointed out by
Orin Kerr, pre-Katz decisions did not use a trespass test. Basically, Katz pooh-poohed a trespass angle that didn't exist, so the recent decision went back to a method that never existed. Kerr can say it better than I:

This essay examines the history of the Fourth Amendment search doctrine and reaches the surprising conclusion that the trespass test never existed. Pre-Katz decisions did not adopt a trespass test, and instead grappled with many of the same questions that the Court has focused on when applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test. The idea that trespass controlled before Katz turns out to be a myth of the Katz Court: Katz mischaracterized Fourth Amendment history to justify a break from prior precedent. Jones thus restores a test that never actually existed.

You can find out more at this great little blog here: http://fourthamendment.com/blog/ind...rticle_the_curious_histo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

And here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2154611##​

 

[RetiredOC]

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".

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.

Don't look like you've had much success in changing many of those opinions.

There are some things you just can't fix.

776.012 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?

1. Florida statutes have nothing to due with a case in Houston
2. Why would the state statutes say anything about one step above? Statutes define what is illegal and in this case what is considered justifiable use of force. Why would the statutes describe use of force techniques? You're argument here is laughable.
3. Since I'm pretty well versed in Florida statutes, I'll play your game.

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

But wait WalkingWolf? What is a forcible felony in the state of Florida?

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.

Attempting to stab someone with a pen can very easily be construed to be aggravated assault, which in Florida is a forcible felony, which in Florida is just reason for using deadly force. Still want to press on with how Florida law would apply in this situation?

I'm glad you're attempting to use law and cite sources, but it doesn't help your case when you're arguing against the information you're citing, thinking that somehow it will back you up.

For the record, my super secret LE training wasn't from the state of Florida.

The fact that you're focusing so much attention on trying to belittle my claim of training instead of debating the content of my post is revealing your inability to defend your far out arguments.

Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned.

Cite?

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

~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.

 

[RetiredOC]

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)

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

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)

If the cops weren't overwhelmed, one of the two should not have shot him. I think you finally get it.

 

[RetiredOC]

If the cops weren't overwhelmed, one of the two should not have shot him. I think you finally get it.

From the sounds of it you still 'don't get it.'

The use of lethal force doesn't require that you're being overwhelmed. If you're being overwhelmed then it's too late. Did you read the article? The officer claims that he feared for the safety of his partner and himself. (not sure why himself, he wasn't the one cornered) Why does he say he feared for the safety of his partner? They claim his partner was cornered and the mentally ill amputee was waiving a metal object while making threats, trying to stab his partner. He claims it was because of this that he resulted to lethal force.

I don't know if what the cop said is true, I wasn't there. However, that's the only word we have to go off of right now until more information is released from the investigation that should follow. Again, being overwhelmed by the 'suspect' isn't a requirement for you to use lethal force to defend yourself or someone else. A mere attempt to cause great bodily harm is enough to be responded to with lethal force.

next.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> Cite?

I did, you simply failed to comprehend what you read.....if you read "it."

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>

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."

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Only 1 officer used deadly force, not two.

I'm not commenting on culpability, either way, of the particular cops discussed in this thread. Just taking the above quote a little further because it started me thinking.


So, if only one of two cops actually applies deadly force when not necessary, does that not criminate* the second cop? Some ideas:

1. Felony murder. If a person is involved in a crime and someone dies during that crime, then the criminal attendees are guilty of felony murder.

2. Failure to protect from harm. If Cop 1 sees Cop 2 go for his gun and doesn't act to stop him from using unnecessary lethal force, then I kinda have to assume that Cop 1 is complicit in the use of unjustified lethal force.


So, in a scenario like in the OP, while only one cop actually applied lethal force, I would have to say both cops could be culpable if the use of lethal force was not justified.


*Criminate means the same thing as incriminate. I got the word from quotes of old English documents relating to the history of the 5th Amendment right to silence in the book The Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination.

 

[RetiredOC]

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."

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."

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 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!)

 

[davidmcbeth]

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."

If the felony was murder, you would 100% be able to justify shooting in the back ...

 

[OC for ME]

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!)

Or, you failed to review the entire chapter of RSMo 563. No big deal.

The cop's actions, lawful/justifiable or not, are based on statute not case law. My actions will be prosecuted or not based on statute, and a past court case may help me in court if I must defend myself. The prosecutor must prove that my act was unlawful based on statute not case law, if he can not then there should not be a prosecution under the applicable statute(s). if they prosecute then the case you cite is another thing in my favor.....in a courtroom.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000031.HTM

guncite or RSMo? I choose RSMo.

Once again, the lower standard as compared to the standard I must meet given the above.

..... (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.

There is no distinction made in the statute between a misdemeanor arrest or a felony arrest.

The statute provides me a much lower standard to meet if I plug a perp in my home.

 

[OC for ME]

If the felony was murder, you would 100% be able to justify shooting in the back ...

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).

 

[RetiredOC]

Or, you failed to review the entire chapter of RSMo 563. No big deal.

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.

Typically cops have a lower standard to meet where the use of lethal force is concerned.

The statute provides me a much lower standard to meet if I plug a perp in my home.

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.

 

[OC for ME]

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.

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.

You only had to read the initial cite and comprehend the simplicity of that statute. I then cited the more restrictive statute that applies to me. I did not request that you read the entire chapter, AND those two statutes (standards if you will) are at the heart of this topic.

The shooter has a lower standard to meet when using lethal force. Good for him bad for a perp. That is the point of this thread or at least the crux of the issue for some regarding the OP. The shooter just has to convince IA that he had a reasonable fear, and he has a "witness", and he gets to walk.

If I shot that one-armed-one-legged wheelchair bound nut job wielding a ink pen, outside of my home, I would be spending a very very very long time in the Big House.....a very much higher standard for me and not he.

I disagree with that legal concept. 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.

 

[DocWalker]

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.

+1 (I agree with this statement, I'm 99% of the time pro LE but this shoot seems a little over the top.)