• 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 acquitted of murder captured on video

jaeger19 said:
You know.. you would have a lot more credibility if you stopped your insulting behavior on this board.

Your post didn't add anything substantial to what I linked to..

You do realize that "as one ADA quoted TWO MONTHS AGO".. refers to the same information that I provided right? :doh
Click to expand...

Do you understand I find you insulting?
 
OldFatGuy said:
More "I know the law." Look up the laws, and they differ in most states, but few require "reasonable belief of imminent death" or "threat of grave bodily injury" of a shooting officer. Thanks for the chuckles.

In many jurisdictions there are no laws controlling police shootings, only departmental policies and rules.

Do you want to reconsider your prior claim to having knowledge?

From a Supreme Court Decision:

"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

There are dozens of cases whereby this decision was used to defend police officers who shot and killed unarmed felony suspects. There are dozens of cases which have used this decision to defend bounty hunters who have shot and killed fleeing unarmed felons. There are dozens of cases defending FBI and other federal police agents, including US Marshals, used deadly force to stop and kill known unarmed felons fleeing from arrest.

Do you want to reconsider your prior claim to having knowledge?

Both the Texas Rangers and the Arizona Rangers have standing orders to kill anyone in the process of unlawfully crossing the border into their respective states, on the basis of this decision.

Do you want to reconsider your prior claim to having knowledge?

We are not discussing morality, political agendas, right or wrong. We are discussing reality. "Probable cause" has no lawful definition. Definition varies by jurisdiction and circumstances.

Do you want to reconsider your prior claim to having knowledge?
Click to expand...

Well.. that's a rambling post.

I looked up the law.. they require reasonable belief of imminent death or grave bodily injury.. or are you claiming that police officers are not subject to the law?

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force
Click to expand...

Yep. I suggest you read that. where the officer has "probably cause" i.e reasonable belief.. that a suspect poses a "threat of serious physical harm".. ie.. grave bodily injury.

Both the Texas Rangers and the Arizona Rangers have standing orders to kill anyone in the process of unlawfully crossing the border into their respective states, on the basis of this decision.
Click to expand...

Please provide that link please.

We are not discussing morality, political agendas, right or wrong. We are discussing reality. "Probable cause" has no lawful definition. Definition varies by jurisdiction and circumstances.
Click to expand...

Ummmm probable cause does have a legal definition..

Probable Cause
DEFINITION

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search).
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause


Do you want to reconsider your prior claim to having knowledge
Click to expand...
?

Nope.. Its not my fault that you don't realize that what you posted supported me more than it did you..
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. not at all.

1. It was easily observable that there was no firearm in the persons back area when he laid down for the police officer
Click to expand...

When you want to hide things, people will come up with clever ways of doing so. Ask any cop that's been on the force for a while how many times he nearly missed finding a gun or the weirdest or clever way a gun was hidden.

2. It was easily observable that there was no firearm in the persons side or front waistband area when the suspect sat up with his hands in the air.
Click to expand...

See above. Also consider that you are making these statements in the comfort of your own home eating cheetos. The cops responded to a man with a gun. Meaning they knew or reasonably percieved that there's a good chance of them getting shot. You may say that it's their job to risk their lives, however risking one's life is not equivalent to recklessly endangering their lives and at the end of the day, they are humans with a natural instinct to live.

There was NO indication of a firearm at all. And he didn't even reach to his back.
Click to expand...

How do you know that and he did reached behind his back.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BnKYL7AWNQo
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You admit the orders were messed up. You admit that lack of following those messed up orders got the man killed. Had the officers not been trigger-happy idiots, that innocent citizen would be alive. You can't completely create the situation that leads a man's death and then call it justified. It was murder.
Click to expand...

It's not murder. If anything, it's manslaughter. The orders were if you reach for your back then you will be shot and that's what happened.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then it was cinspiracy to commit murder...
Click to expand...

Conspiracy require premeditated thought and planning. Murder requires premeditated or heat of the moment unlawful taking of a life on purpose. Neither definition fits this case.


Legally with some crap laws maybe... morally and common sensically it was an execution by some retarded trigger happy cops.
Click to expand...

It's not even an execution.
 
Who is they?

Cornell Law speaks only for NYS law, Federal as appropriate. There are no governing Federal laws for police behavior other than Civil Rights laws.

It is your fault your comprehension level is minimal at best.
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmmm.. well I cannot help how you feel.. no matter how unwarranted.
Click to expand...

I cannot help how you feel.. no matter how unwarranted.

See how that works 2 ways?
 
Maccabee said:
Conspiracy require premeditated thought and planning. Murder requires premeditated or heat of the moment unlawful taking of a life on purpose. Neither definition fits this case.




It's not even an execution.
Click to expand...

Semantics...
 
OldFatGuy said:
I have no doubt you were a professional Park Ranger, but I also know for fact as a member of the NYPD, the NYPD never trained anyone outside of the NYPD how to use firearms, least of all, park rangers. I didn't have to look up anything. Experience as a poster doesn't prove veracity. Yawn.
Click to expand...

I never said they trained us on firearms :roll:

Typing doesnt prove reading comprehension. Yawn.
 
OldFatGuy said:
NYPD training, warn and negotiate with potential target, if not responsive, acquire target, release safety, chamber round, fire for effect. In other words, shoot to kill. Sure, you were trained by the NYPD. ROFL
Click to expand...

Funny stuff! Esp. since in 2 different threads now several other cops have said my post was reasonable.

I never met a NYPD cop that jumped to such poor conclusions and then stuck to them like glue even when wrong. You sound like you were a danger to the public, darned glad you're retired.

And I spent hours and hours and hours and hours and hours on post with NYPD.

San Juan Fiesta Parade, St. Patricks Day Parade, Shakespeare in the Park, outside Gracie Mansion, concerts on the Great Lawn, etc.
 
Maccabee said:
When you want to hide things, people will come up with clever ways of doing so. Ask any cop that's been on the force for a while how many times he nearly missed finding a gun or the weirdest or clever way a gun was hidden.

[/url]
Click to expand...

Yeah.. in that type of situation.. a firearm has to be accessible. Perhaps he could have buried a firearm between his butt cheeks.. but it would take a lot more than a quick movement to his side to draw it and fire. Come on man.

See above. Also consider that you are making these statements in the comfort of your own home eating cheetos. The cops responded to a man with a gun. Meaning they knew or reasonably percieved that there's a good chance of them getting shot. You may say that it's their job to risk their lives, however risking one's life is not equivalent to recklessly endangering their lives and at the end of the day, they are humans with a natural instinct to live.
Click to expand...

Yeah no. first I don't like Cheetos/.. secondly I was a reserve officer. Secondly.. they responded to a man with a gun. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE OF THEM GETTING SHOT. is it a caution? sure.. but the REALITY is that 1. They were going to a hotel where there were going to be MULTIPLE PEOPLE who were utterly harmless. in fact.. the vast majority of people they were going to see that day.. were harmless.

2. People carry firearms every day. Cripes.. I carry openly in one state all the time. On my hip. so do tons of other people. Just because a fellow has a firearm does not mean.. "I am going to get shot". Now. .shots fired.. officer needs help? That's a different situation.

But.. "we saw a guy with a gun". No responsible police officer should be going in with an attitude that everyone they meet is going to kill them and they must shoot first and ask questions later.

You may say that it's their job to risk their lives, however risking one's life is not equivalent to recklessly endangering their lives and at the end of the day, they are humans with a natural instinct to live.
Click to expand...

Actually.. I would point out that its their job to PROTECT civilians... not treat every single person as a deadly threat that needs to be eliminated. Its there responsibility not to recklessly endanger the lives of the very people they are supposed to protect.

How do you know that and he did reached behind his back
Click to expand...

I saw the video. He did not reach for his back.. and there was no indication of a firearm. I am trained to look for when a person is carrying. I carry concealed very often in a variety of ways. There was no indication of a firearm whatsoever..
 
OldFatGuy said:
I cannot help how you feel.. no matter how unwarranted.

See how that works 2 ways?
Click to expand...

Yep.. I am just trying to help you regain some credibility.. if you choose not to take my advice.. that's up to you.

I figure you are heading toward getting banned from this site with your behavior.. but that's on you.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Who is they?

Cornell Law speaks only for NYS law, Federal as appropriate. There are no governing Federal laws for police behavior other than Civil Rights laws.

It is your fault your comprehension level is minimal at best.
Click to expand...

My comprehension is just fine. Your attempts at diversion are feeble at best.
 
Lursa said:
I never said they trained us on firearms :roll:

Typing doesnt prove reading comprehension. Yawn.
Click to expand...

I'm not digging for it, but you certainly did.
 
Lursa said:
Funny stuff! Esp. since in 2 different threads now several other cops have said my post was reasonable.

I never met a NYPD cop that jumped to such poor conclusions and then stuck to them like glue even when wrong. You sound like you were a danger to the public, darned glad you're retired.

And I spent hours and hours and hours and hours and hours on post with NYPD.

San Juan Fiesta Parade, St. Patricks Day Parade, Shakespeare in the Park, outside Gracie Mansion, concerts on the Great Lawn, etc.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I'm not digging for it, but you certainly did.
Click to expand...

Nope.

You saw what you expected to see, just like the cop that killed the guy in the hallway.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. in that type of situation.. a firearm has to be accessible. Perhaps he could have buried a firearm between his butt cheeks.. but it would take a lot more than a quick movement to his side to draw it and fire. Come on man.



Yeah no. first I don't like Cheetos/.. secondly I was a reserve officer. Secondly.. they responded to a man with a gun. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE OF THEM GETTING SHOT. is it a caution? sure.. but the REALITY is that 1. They were going to a hotel where there were going to be MULTIPLE PEOPLE who were utterly harmless. in fact.. the vast majority of people they were going to see that day.. were harmless.

2. People carry firearms every day. Cripes.. I carry openly in one state all the time. On my hip. so do tons of other people. Just because a fellow has a firearm does not mean.. "I am going to get shot". Now. .shots fired.. officer needs help? That's a different situation.

But.. "we saw a guy with a gun". No responsible police officer should be going in with an attitude that everyone they meet is going to kill them and they must shoot first and ask questions later.



Actually.. I would point out that its their job to PROTECT civilians... not treat every single person as a deadly threat that needs to be eliminated. Its there responsibility not to recklessly endanger the lives of the very people they are supposed to protect.



I saw the video. He did not reach for his back.. and there was no indication of a firearm. I am trained to look for when a person is carrying. I carry concealed very often in a variety of ways. There was no indication of a firearm whatsoever..
Click to expand...

Other than your numbering system... I agree.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I'm not digging for it, but you certainly did.
Click to expand...

....................................................


Lursa said:
So you looked up a bunch of stuff and decide I'm lying. LMAO, that's just convenience on your part. I've posted on here for years that I was a Park Ranger in Central Park and that we got training with the NYPD. I was also a park ranger for St. Louis County and got training from SLPD. And that DID include firearms training. (NY did not)

If you want to doubt my professional training, feel free, but I didnt invent it just to make you look bad.

LOL, you did that all by yourself.
Click to expand...


OldFatGuy said:
I have no doubt you were a professional Park Ranger, but I also know for fact as a member of the NYPD, the NYPD never trained anyone outside of the NYPD how to use firearms, least of all, park rangers. I didn't have to look up anything. Experience as a poster doesn't prove veracity. Yawn.
Click to expand...

OldFatGuy said:
NYPD training, warn and negotiate with potential target, if not responsive, acquire target, release safety, chamber round, fire for effect. In other words, shoot to kill. Sure, you were trained by the NYPD. ROFL
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Nope.

You saw what you expected to see, just like the cop that killed the guy in the hallway.
Click to expand...

Game. Set. Match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom