Another righteous shooting in Dallas by police? You watch the video

[Flopsweat]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're showing your ignorance about the subject.

You'll have to quote your source(s) for such a claim that; " Police have no special powers when it comes to using deadly force on an American citizen, than any other American citizen has."

LE does have more leeway when it comes to using deadly force than the citizen does. I don't agree with all of it, but you can thank the "Supremes" (SCOTUS) for that.

I don't doubt you but can you provide a source for that?

 

[oknow]

what ever happened to the rules of deadly force encounters? ABILITY ,OPPORTUNITY, INTENT.

he was standing up, he was standing up and he was standing up.

 

[wichaka]

I don't doubt you but can you provide a source for that?

There's a major Federal Law that governs use of force, specifically the use of deadly force; Tennessee V Garner 471 US 1. Then for state law, since I'm in Washington; RCW 9A.16.040

Compare that to what citizens are allowed to do in such circumstances, and you'll understand the differences. If not, let me know and I'll go thru them so all can understand.

In some circumstances I believe citizens should be able to employ deadly force the same as LE, but thanks to the courts they see it different.

But I heard that the Officer involved in this incident is getting charged. So they must have enough to charge, will have to wait and see if there's enough to convict.

 

[Flopsweat]

There's a major Federal Law that governs use of force, specifically the use of deadly force; Tennessee V Garner 471 US 1. Then for state law, since I'm in Washington; RCW 9A.16.040

Compare that to what citizens are allowed to do in such circumstances, and you'll understand the differences. If not, let me know and I'll go thru them so all can understand.

In some circumstances I believe citizens should be able to employ deadly force the same as LE, but thanks to the courts they see it different.

But I heard that the Officer involved in this incident is getting charged. So they must have enough to charge, will have to wait and see if there's enough to convict.

Thanks!

So it looks like an officer can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect, where a citizen is limited to when the bad guy is committing a felony against them or seems to be trying to seriously injure them or a close relative or, curiously "any other person in his or her presence or company". So relatives or come to think of it, anybody. Most of that I'm OK with, but RCW 9A.16.040 has some wording about deadly force by LE that seems a little vague to me: "When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty." Sounds like they can shoot anyone who resists. It can't really be taken that far, right?

 

[wichaka]

Appears you're on the right track.

(b) is considered the "Fight to the death" language. It allows the use of deadly force should the resistance to your legal duty escalate to the point of its necessity.



RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

 

[chariot13]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're showing your ignorance about the subject.

You'll have to quote your source(s) for such a claim that; " Police have no special powers when it comes to using deadly force on an American citizen, than any other American citizen has."

LE does have more leeway when it comes to using deadly force than the citizen does. I don't agree with all of it, but you can thank the "Supremes" (SCOTUS) for that.

Notice i stated " all you have to do to know what is right" and not what is legal. Because what is right isn't necessarily legal and what is legal isn't usually right. If you were to claim, that what is legal is what matters most. Im sure it does to someone that holds a 'legal' sense above common sense. You probably shouldn't speak ill of whatever you're trying to sell, if you want to have any buyers. Competing with your own interest is counter productive. Anyways thankfully what is right, is a whole lot more important to people, than what is legal. Not only proven when you open a history book, but by looking through a current newspaper or simply around you.

 

[wichaka]

What is "right" is subjective, unfortunately.

I'm not claiming that what is legal is what matters most, but it will be what matters most should one have to employ deadly force.
One needs to know what one can and can not do legally...knowledge is power.

The only thing I'm trying to sell is knowledge of how deadly force is legally applied and judged...and its not judged by what is "right". Again, that may be unfortunate.

But after thinking all this over a time or two, its probably all for naught.

 

[RicInOR]

Dallas again.

I did a quick search of NWFA and didn't find this story. But did find this thread and since it involves a similar police force - adding it here.

Fired Cop Patrick Tuter Indicted For Killing Michael Allen, Firing 41 Shots At Unarmed Suspect
1. The source is an opinion site - but there are links in the story or at the bottom to MSM coverage.
2. Similar - gave an lawful order then waited a very short time before opening fire
3. Lied or at least misrepresented the facts

 

[Blitzkrieg]

On the surface it looks very bad indeed.. note the cops moved within potential attack range, the victim did not advance

The American people are a long suffering lot, we were even back in 1775.. but there's a limit, read the Declaration of Independence

 

[chariot13]

What is "right" is subjective

What is legal, is subjective. No differently than what is right.

Trying to define what is objective, with a language that was used to make up no less than the very name that was made up by your parents and given to you, or the screen name 'you' presumably made up for yourself here, is an attempt at defining what 'you view' as objective via a subjective language. Language itself is subjective, by the species utilizing it. And in every sense, those that are willing to force their own definitions upon others, will make attempt to dictate any belief of objectivity and subjectivity, by whatever they view as their own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_7zkK6XzmE

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Thanks!

So it looks like an officer can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect, where a citizen is limited to when the bad guy is committing a felony against them or seems to be trying to seriously injure them or a close relative or, curiously "any other person in his or her presence or company". So relatives or come to think of it, anybody. Most of that I'm OK with, but RCW 9A.16.040 has some wording about deadly force by LE that seems a little vague to me: "When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty." Sounds like they can shoot anyone who resists. It can't really be taken that far, right?

Here in WA State civilians can use deadly force to defend even strangers against felony assault (whether you should in any given case is up to you)

 

[xymotic]

Don't forget the other 'difference' is that cops tend to have personal relationships with other cops, a tradition of supporting each other sometimes even too far, and a tradition of retaliating against those who don't.

The people who decide whether or not to file charges will usually use the most lenient standards possible if it's one of their own. So that's a huge advantage over the average citizen.

Can you imagine if seven 'hunters' got 'frightened' by a couple of women small women in a blue truck because they thought it was a "large black Bear" in a grey truck that they were "hunting" in a suburban Los Angeles residential Neighborhood and let off 100+ rounds at their backs as they fled?



LAPD Officers Hunting Dorner Shot Women - Business Insider
14 Days Later..Still No Charges for 6 LAPD Officers Who Shot 2 Innocent Women - Hip-Hop and Politics

Oh, and let's not forget that the Bear they were hunting had been fired for allegedly making false allegations about other 'bears'

You think Seven average hunters would have been charged for that? Or would their employer have just written a check for several million dollars?

 

[TwinStick]

I was in CA on a business trip when that Dorner hunt was going down. Crazy week for sure!

This video, and videos like this have really changed my perception of LE. My father was LE in AK growing up and I knew most of the Police and Troopers in our small town so I have always respected law enforcement. It does seem like big cities have a real problem with the law enforcement culture though and it makes me nervous. I better stop speeding or else I could get tazed, pepper sprayed, bean bagged or shot on accident.

 

[xymotic]

I was in CA on a business trip when that Dorner hunt was going down. Crazy week for sure!

This video, and videos like this have really changed my perception of LE. My father was LE in AK growing up and I knew most of the Police and Troopers in our small town so I have always respected law enforcement. It does seem like big cities have a real problem with the law enforcement culture though and it makes me nervous. I better stop speeding or else I could get tazed, pepper sprayed, bean bagged or shot on accident.

Um, you'd be getting off lightly if they only did all of those things! Now they are anally raping guys for rolling stop signs. note that the headline is Second Man Second New Mexico Man Reports Police Forced Anal Probe After Traffic Stop | ThinkProgress

And the weird thing about Dornier, is that he wasn't wrong. His manefesto was way out there, but he did have some pretty valid points they REALLY didn't like hearing.

 

[wichaka]

Dallas again.

I did a quick search of NWFA and didn't find this story. But did find this thread and since it involves a similar police force - adding it here.

Fired Cop Patrick Tuter Indicted For Killing Michael Allen, Firing 41 Shots At Unarmed Suspect
1. The source is an opinion site - but there are links in the story or at the bottom to MSM coverage.
2. Similar - gave an lawful order then waited a very short time before opening fire
3. Lied or at least misrepresented the facts

Wow, what can one say to this one?

A couple things interesting pointed out...the 2nd Officer covering behind his vehicle from all the shooting...and that Tuter had to reload???

It appears that Admin.s had better sit up and rethink doing some remedial 'use of force' training.

Still trying to get over the...having to reload thing.

 

[Burt Gummer]

There are firing on unarmed kids as young as SIX now, so I am sure it is safe to say things are only getting worse. Just do your best to avoid contact with them in your life the best that you can.

NEVER call them, never request anything from them. If they are walking down the street toward you, cross the street. Be a realist and understand you don't move in for a closer look at a rattlesnake and you certainly don't poke it with a stick. Its brain is tiny, it only knows how to strike out at you and ruin your life.

 

[Burt Gummer]

I better stop speeding or else I could get tazed, pepper sprayed, bean bagged or shot on accident.

Yes. When you live in a police state you must make adjustments.

You can ignore reality, but not the consequences of ignoring reality. Welcome to ameriKa comrades.



http://www.thedailysheeple.com/cops-kill-8-times-more-americans-than-terrorists_112013