• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cop shoots suspect, mistakes gun for tazer

Is there another thread on this? This is a few days old.

Very sad but...the reserve deputy was 73 yrs old? Yowzaa. There's a reason that people are supposed to...even forced to...retire at a certain age.

Maybe they should reconsider the configuration of tasers to be so similar to guns. Are they all like that? I have seen some that arent but they werent police issue.
 
Love this part.

I also read that when the man said he couldn't breathe, one of the deputies said "f your breath." And they also said something in response to "you shot me!" to the effect of "shut up, you ran." That guy had 0 chance of getting out of that situation and was outnumbered 10 to 1. If you can't subdue him, you have no right being out on the streets "fighting crime" (re: murdering suspects). On top of that, he MISTOOK a gun for a tazer? That must be a variety of firearm I'm not familiar with.

Another day, another one of these stories. Police aren't military. Suspects aren't enemy combatants. Can't people at least have the right to not be murdered before due process has occurred?
 
I also read that when the man said he couldn't breathe, one of the deputies said "f your breath." And they also said something in response to "you shot me!" to the effect of "shut up, you ran." That guy had 0 chance of getting out of that situation and was outnumbered 10 to 1. If you can't subdue him, you have no right being out on the streets "fighting crime" (re: murdering suspects). On top of that, he MISTOOK a gun for a tazer? That must be a variety of firearm I'm not familiar with.

Another day, another one of these stories. Police aren't military. Suspects aren't enemy combatants. Can't people at least have the right to not be murdered before due process has occurred?

Also troubling: how "Glock-like" the taser's grip was.
 
Never mind that the guy was a PCP-addled felon who endangered others by running from cops on a police chase.
 
Never mind that the guy was a PCP-addled felon who endangered others by running from cops on a police chase.

You trying to alter when it is acceptable for the Police to kill someone?
 
A taser is supposed to be considered lethal force, so theoretically the decision to use one should also allow the use of a firearm. It's not the mistake that was at fault here, it was the decision-making.
 
You trying to alter when it is acceptable for the Police to kill someone?

I'm saying that if you don't take PCP and start a police chase, this probably won't happen to you.

This is classic Darwin working here. Liberals love that stuff.
 
Never mind that the guy was a PCP-addled felon who endangered others by running from cops on a police chase.

I'm saying that if you don't take PCP and start a police chase, this probably won't happen to you.

This is classic Darwin working here. Liberals love that stuff.

Some people will apologize for anything.
 
I'm saying that if you don't take PCP and start a police chase, this probably won't happen to you.

This is classic Darwin working here. Liberals love that stuff.

How you are turning this into a partisan issue is beyond my comprehension.

Also, if you don't drive, you won't get in a car accident. That doesn't mean that I would react with indifference were you to be killed in a car accident. Knowing the risks doesn't nullify a tragedy and I'm going to agree with the (just a guess) 99.999999999999999999999% of the population who would be opposed to killing a safely subdued criminal suspect.
 
How you are turning this into a partisan issue is beyond my comprehension.

Also, if you don't drive, you won't get in a car accident. That doesn't mean that I would react with indifference were you to be killed in a car accident. Knowing the risks doesn't nullify a tragedy and I'm going to agree with the (just a guess) 99.999999999999999999999% of the population who would be opposed to killing a safely subdued criminal suspect.

Yeah, driving a car is like ingesting PCP and running from the cops. Gotcha.

I'm not saying this is no issue. I just save my sympathies for those that deserve sympathy.
 
It is an accidental shooting. Clearly no malice. Clearly a mistake. But, that doesn't mean he is without liability. I'm not certain what level of liability, but some liability. Probably manslaughter on some level.

It does point to a problem with having someone that is 73 years old handling a life or death situation. Maybe a discussion about age limits or competency testing that is more rigorous for more experienced officers and volunteers is appropriate.
 
Never mind that the guy was a PCP-addled felon who endangered others by running from cops on a police chase.

Never mind that is not a justification of a cop killing an unarmed man....


BTW... where does it say he was a felon or are you just makin' stuff up as you go along once again?
 
I'm saying that if you don't take PCP and start a police chase, this probably won't happen to you. This is classic Darwin working here. Liberals love that stuff.

They also say ignorance is bliss, some Cons are slap happy ignorant. A South carolina man was stopped for not wearing his seat belt and shot when he reached into his vehicle to get the ID the Trooper asked for. The citizen didn't run, was obeying the Trooper and was shot with his hands raised. The Trooper is charged with aggravated assault. So much for a CON's theory of evolution.

Would be MUCH closer to the truth to say over 70 and a deputy is best for security at parades, funerals and football games, not LE stings. Someone is going to get a butt load of money. The Sheriff was only half right, the 73 yo deputy's training was piss poor, most depts require the taser to be carried in the cross draw position, painted brite yellow and the grip is much different than a pistol. I have ZERO idea what this 'glock like' grip crap is. So when push came to shove the elderly deputy pooched the deal and used his strong hand draw weapon instead of the cross draw one.
 
Never mind that is not a justification of a cop killing an unarmed man....


BTW... where does it say he was a felon or are you just makin' stuff up as you go along once again?

It is not justification, but it does go to shared responsibility. Had he not been dealing guns and drugs, he would not have been running from the cops and he wouldn't have been shot. Like I said above, it still is partially the officer's fault. He still has some liability in this. But so does the victim.
 
Yeah, driving a car is like ingesting PCP and running from the cops. Gotcha.

I'm not saying this is no issue. I just save my sympathies for those that deserve sympathy.

So you're saying he deserved to be killed on the spot?
 
That guy should have retired a long time ago. I get it. He's aging and he still feels able and wants to work. I once knew an EMT who was doing EMT work until the age of 84 - he was good at it and he knew more than anyone else. The department needed him. Even he knew when enough was enough and when he had to take it down a level. I believe the cop was truly mistaken and pulled the wrong utility but his age is probably the reason why - and I would hold the PD responsible for letting it get to the point that it has.
 
I didn't notice anyone else mention this previously, but this is very similar to the BART cop in San Francisco who killed a young man when he mistakenly shot him with his gun rather than his taser. That BART cop was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 2 years in prison less time served. The BART was also sued and settled for just under $3 million with the family of the victim.

Seems to me this is what will happen in this case as well. Considering the officer involved here is 73, by the time he's tried, convicted, and sentenced, he may be looking at what amounts to a life sentence if he lives to serve any time.
 
I'm saying that if you don't take PCP and start a police chase, this probably won't happen to you.

While true, that does not mean that taking PCP and starting a police chase means the police can respond in any manner they wish (legal or otherwise.) What you are accidentally implying is based on the actions of the suspect the police can forgo rights and the law acting with no responsibility for their actions. Which would be kin to saying Police are above the law so long as they are dealing with someone who is committing a crime themselves.

This is not an example of a justifiable lethal force.

This is classic Darwin working here. Liberals love that stuff.

This is not a left or right issue, this is about an understanding of cause and effect. Sure, the suspect is made a series of mistakes, criminal actions, and should have been in a disposition to face charges for those actions. What he did not do was something that justified an on the spot execution, when even the officer that did the killing is saying he did not intend to do so.

The suspect is not a Darwin award candidate by any stretch of the imagination. This is a criminal act by the suspect which was responded to by a criminal act by the officer.
 
I have no issue with a drugged out moron getting a lead sandwich.

Then that means you believe in unequal application of the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom