The Great Police Work Thread

[Cotton]

Ok, I understand, just got confused because you said one group of cops were open to more scrutiny than the other. Is that because there is a video of one shooting?

The Powell shooting.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I've seen people say the same about the Brown case. It's stupid logic developed from action movies as you said. Hitting a leg while someone is charging you is ridiculously hard to do. If you're threatened every expert on the planet tells you to shoot for the body mass.

A police officer is held to a higher standard of self defense they can't shoot somebody just because they feel threatened it has to be a life or death situation.

Just because somebody makes a threatening move you cannot empty a clip in them they are cops and trained to use deadly force as a last result that's why the have Tasers and other non lethal remedies.

This Missouri deadly force law you can make of it what you will.

Missouri's Rule on Deadly Force by Cops
By Robert VerBruggen
As new facts come to light about the interaction that led to Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, a major question is whether the police officer, Darren Wilson, broke the law. As Peter Suderman points out at Reason (citing a tweet from Sean Davis of The Federalist), Missouri appears to have a very lax standard for the use of deadly force by officers:

A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(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

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

http://archive.news-leader.com/graphics/ShuckPC.pdf

 

[Cotton]

Thanks for posting all that. But, if Brown really was going for his gun, that would be life or death to me.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Thanks for posting all that. But, if Brown really was going for his gun, that would be life or death to me.

The one thing that does not seem to be in debate is that when Brown was shot he was not engaged with the officer and was some distance away.

 

[jeebs]

The one thing that does not seem to be in debate is that when Brown was shot he was not engaged with the officer and was some distance away.

It seems he was shot in two stages, once while going for the gun and mutliple times when he was coming back.

IMO if he was justified with the first round, he gets a pass for round 2

 

[Kbrown]

A deputy constable friend of mine explained one time that if he's wrestling with a suspect, he has to flip to the mindset that the suspect has access to a gun, because he, the deputy constable, is there.

If you don't think that a man with physical size comparable to that of maybe a slightly undersized NFL offensive lineman--who has already taken a bullet and is still jogging around, and who has already fractured your face in a scuffle--advancing toward you against your orders constitutes a life-and-death threat, I am not sure what to tell you.

 

[Cotton]

A deputy constable friend of mine explained one time that if he's wrestling with a suspect, he has to flip to the mindset that the suspect has access to a gun, because he, the deputy constable, is there.

If you don't think that a man with physical size comparable to that of maybe a slightly undersized NFL offensive lineman--who has already taken a bullet and is still jogging around, and who has already fractured your face in a scuffle--advancing toward you against your orders constitutes a life-and-death threat, I am not sure what to tell you.

Exactly.

 

[jeebs]

I think it's important to remember, if you ever find yourself wrestling with a cop, kill that fucker because it is a life and death struggle and he wants to do you in.

 

[Cotton]

I think it's important to remember, if you ever find yourself wrestling with a cop, kill that fucker because it is a life and death struggle and he wants to do you in.

As well he should.

 

[jeebs]

As well he should.

Yes, cops should want and seek to kill anyone who they find themselves in a physical confrontation with.

 

[NoDak]

Yes, cops should want and seek to kill anyone who they find themselves in a physical confrontation with.

Damn. And you were SO close to escaping idiot status.

Oh well...

 

[Kbrown]

I think it's important to remember, if you ever find yourself wrestling with a cop, kill that fucker because it is a life and death struggle and he wants to do you in.

The point is more that the officer has to be mindful of the fact that the weapon could come into play, not that the suspect HAS the weapon.

But you already know that. You are just flipping back into the persona.

 

[jeebs]

Damn. And you were SO close to escaping idiot status.

Oh well...

You are one simple un-imaginative bastard.

I am not disagreeing with the use of force as described in the ferguson situation, I question how strongly people are wording the arguments to support that. Kbrowns description basically could justify intentional lethal force in any physical confrontation a cop finds himself in, whether the officer started it or not. Basically submit instantly or be murdered. Which I wouldn't agree with...

To simply restate: People's statements could support the use of force in situation I do not.

 

[jeebs]

The point is more that the officer has to be mindful of the fact that the weapon could come into play, not that the suspect HAS the weapon.

But you already know that. You are just flipping back into the persona.

lol yea.

 

[Cotton]

Yes, cops should want and seek to kill anyone who they find themselves in a physical confrontation with.

In this situation, you damn right they should, and you have admitted as much already. So why the sudden plunge back into idiocy?

 

[Cotton]

You are one simple un-imaginative bastard.

I am not disagreeing with the use of force as described in the ferguson situation, I question how strongly people are wording the arguments to support that. Kbrowns description basically could justify intentional lethal force in any physical confrontation a cop finds himself in, whether the officer started it or not. Basically submit instantly or be murdered. Which I wouldn't agree with...

To simply restate: People's statements could support the use of force in situation I do not.

In literally any situation where someone tries tries to take his gun, that cop is justified in shooting him dead. That's what Kbrown was alluding to. He's saying that the cop should act immediate like the perp has a gun if they are struggling for said gun even if he hasn't gotten it yet.

 

[jeebs]

So why the sudden plunge back into idiocy?

Sometimes I like to make a point that is different then the one I write. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't, but I stay entertained. Now you people have ruined it for me, I think I will go back to sweering at grrm.

 

[jeebs]

In literally any situation where someone tries tries to take his gun, that cop is justified in shooting him dead. That's what Kbrown was alluding to. He's saying that the cop should act immediate like the perp has a gun if they are struggling for said gun even if he hasn't gotten it yet.

No, he said in any struggle a cops mindset has to be that the perp has access to a gun.

Now I question what the protocol is when a perp has acess to a gun. My immediate thought was that generally a perp who has acess to a gun is a deadly threat and a cop is justified in responding in kind. After reading what he wrote again, I realize that I made the leap that wasn't on the page. Just because a guy has acess to a gun doesn't mean the officer should respond as if he was going for the gun. So my bad, we can get on with the thread now. I no longer substantially disagree wih kbrown.

 

[Jiggyfly]

A deputy constable friend of mine explained one time that if he's wrestling with a suspect, he has to flip to the mindset that the suspect has access to a gun, because he, the deputy constable, is there.

If you don't think that a man with physical size comparable to that of maybe a slightly undersized NFL offensive lineman--who has already taken a bullet and is still jogging around, and who has already fractured your face in a scuffle--advancing toward you against your orders constitutes a life-and-death threat, I am not sure what to tell you.

So if this is not the way it went down then what?

 

[Kbrown]

So if this is not the way it went down then what?

Then let's wait and see what comes out.

Like I said though, the protestors have made their t-shirts and African American Studies majors have written their alternative media articles. Whatever evidence comes out from here, Darren Wilson will be a symbol of the killer racist cop epidemic forever.