- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
When one understands the parameters of when it is legally an option, not at all.It's hard to understand how it would ever be justified to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
iLOLApparently you are not aware that I didn't use a legal term.
Besides your being wrong, we are discussing a legal issue. Your general use definition does not apply.
The suspect was the aggressor here, not the Officer.
And again you show you are wrong and choosing to focus on an irrelevancy.Lol, no. The officer is factually the one the started the situation due to the suspect not following the law.
The suspect is the one involved in unlawful aggression here, not the Officer. The Officer is the one responding to the unlawful aggression.
Just showing you choose not to be familiar with the evidence in this case especially as links where you can garner said information were previously given.I have seen no evidence of this being the case.
Hardly? iLOLHardly. If you knew anything about what his family said on the matter you would know he didn't want to go to jail, which is why he decided to run away.
What his family speculates on is irrelevant.
Had Scott not bolted from the vehicle the Officer would have received the following information about Scott; “Wanted person. Caution. Armed and dangerous. Violent tendencies.”
That is what was revealed in trial.
You again provide nothing of substance to support your earlier bs.Lone Juror Says He Can't Convict Ex-Cop in Walter Scott Killing
Why do you deny the truth put right in your face? You do this a lot.
Why don't you go ahead and take a stab at redefining the word "Lone"?
You made claims about me that you can not support.
Again.
No. How your absurd thoughts apply to and about me, as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
That you do not understand that the part of you not knowing what you are talking about refers to the first part of the sentence (you speaking about me), is absolutely hilarious.
Irrelevant.It appears that exactly one of twleve jurors, after seeing all of the evidence presented in this case, agrees with you.
Your appeal to the masses/numbers is a logical fallacy.I am not disputing your interpretation of the "letter of the law" or that of the lone juror - as that is your right and the right of that juror. The fact that the vast majority of the jurors and I see the clear danger of allowng any "peace officer" to decide what past or present level of alleged aggression towards himself poses a threat to some unnamed "others" is grounds to kill that person.
Nor do you have a clue to to their individual reasoning.
For all anyone knows, the Jurors you speak of may have simply failed to grasp the significance of the evidence.
As for who determines that threat? In such situations it is and always has been the Officer making that decision and is predicated on a number of factors. That is not an unreasonable allowance given their job. It's not just some willy-nilly decision.
No. Simply no. Familiarize yourself with the standard of review on the use of deadly force by an Officer.Clearly, a law granting that power to anyone, LEO or otherwise, is permission to kill anyone deemed "dangerous" by that one person. For example, an officer may observe what he perceives as a violent attack in progress apt to result in serous inury (e.g. a "serious" bar fight), say "stop - you are under arrest" and then shoot dead either party, to that alleged violent crime, who decides to flee rather than to obey his command. Hey, he was beating up that guy pretty good - by killing him as he fled I stopped a potential serious threat to others.