imported post
JoeSparky wrote:
suntzu wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
suntzu wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
suntzu wrote:
suntzu wrote:
They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.
If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.
Wrong!
To clarify... it depends on the various statutes of the individual states.
In my state of Utah... this is a GOOD SHOOT! if the initial reports are accurate.
JoeSparky
edited to add: "if the initial reports are accurate."
shooting an unarmed person is just as bad as shooting someone in the back....no weapon = no threat of death or serious bodily injury IF the person is far enough away so that he/she cannot engage you in close quarters for your weapon.
Police shooting an individual suspected of having committed a felony who is fleeing is a good shoot in Florida and several other states.
Then why don't we as a society just toss out the laws we claim to abide by, because if we did this and shot someone that we had reason to believe was unarmed--we would be in jail. There are two sets of rules--one for us, and one for them.
Shooting someone you know or should know is unarmed when that person is in retreat is akin to shooting them in the back--there is no difference, and the officer(s) involved in this should be in jail, just like we would be in the same circumstance Shoot them in the act of carjacking though and that is a different story--I can totally justify that. Shooting someone in full retreat is just wrong unless you believe or know for a fact that person is armed.
The situation here was.... "POLICE SHOOT FELON FLEEING AFTER ATEMPTED CARJACKING". And in this context I stand by what I have said earlier. And police are justified in this shooting. It doesn't matter one iota if the fleeing felon is found after the fact to be unarmed.... THAT IS AFTER THE FACT! The police actions will/should bebased on what info the officer knew AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING! If you don't like that the law allows this then work to change the law.
Now, would I as a gun owner elect to shoot someone fleeing after commiting a felony... probably not. But that is a value judgement that I have made for MYSELF as a citizen and NOT A POLICE OFFICER.
JoeSparky
Then you make a difference between you as a citizen and law enforcement--you are saying that your actions while they may be construed as excessive force or attempted murder does not apply to a LEO who commits the same offense, and that LEOs should be exempted.
It was a bad shoot--they should have made some effort to determine whether the individual was armed or unarmed--I mean that is WHY LEOs carry tasers is it not--to deal with resisting suspects who are UNARMED? Let's quit playing word games here--the bottom line at the end of the day is this--the LEO shot an UNARMED man in the act of fleeing...the officer might as well have shot the suspect in the back...
it was a bad shoot and the officer should be fired at the very least. The officer shot simply out of fear--and that was all that motivated this shoot--because the suspect refused to show his hands as quickly as the officer felt he should have--the officer shot him? If the police are that scared--FIND ANOTHER JOB.
At the very least the officer should be fired.
Again--at the end of the day the officer shot AN UNARMED PERSON.
This was a bad shoot.
So, show me in the info provided that the officer KNEW at the time of the shoot that the FELON was not armed. It isn't there!
So, the officer shoots a felon fleeing from a crime scene. IF the officers actions are in compliance with the legal standard then it is a GOOD SHOOT.
In my reading of the news articles presented and if the info is correct, I still say it is a good shoot.
Now, don't miss read what I said as a value judgement. My statement was based upon MY morals NOT a legal standard.
And yes, LEO in some instances do have more leeway than what you and I as mere citizens have. Is it right... NOT A CHANCE! But that is the way the law is!
NOW, PLEASE STOP REFUSING TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE CLEARLY STATED. I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I HAVE SAID!!!!!!!
But don't you see--I'm not refusing to see. I simply see exactly what is before me--a leo shot an individual simply because the person failed to show his hands as quickly as the officer felt he should have...the office shot out of fear, nothing more or less, it was a knee jerk, reactionary movement brought on by a number of factors, including inadequate training, and a failure to slow down the officers rush to force... I'm not saying that perhaps the force may not have been justified under current Florida law--I am saying that the LEO--regardless of HOW you slice it, shot an unarmed man in cold blood. Had it been YOU who had shot this person after he had fled--you would almost certainly be either in jail tonight or out on bond awaiting a decision from the DA on whether Florida would prosecute you for attempted murder or aggravated battery.
Had this individual however had been shot in the commission of the carjacking attempt--that would have been completely justifiable and we would not even be discussing this now.
Shooting him down after the fact, after he fled and was running-- simply because he failed to follow instructions as quickly as directed--is just wrong regardless of how you look at it. The individual should have been given some clear warning.
The fact remains--this individual was unarmed, and from the read on the news--no legitimate attempt was made by the police to determine if the individual was armed--it was just shoot first ask questions later...May God save me from that kind of protection.
As for LEOs being given preferential treatment--yes they are, and they are given preferential treatment on a regular basis--because when it comes to the word of a citizen--our word ALWAYS takes a back seat to the word of a LEO--because it is almost as if the word of a LEO carries the weight of God behind it, and most of the time God would have nothing to do with wthe misuse of their authority. LEOs are not special people--they are simply people doing a job like everyone else, but the problem is, given the opportunity--I think more than you might think would overstep their authority and oppress the people if they thought they could get away with it--want proof? Look at New Orleans during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the people were forcibly disarmed in direct contravention to the Constitution of the United States.
Given what I have read--this was a bad shoot--because had it been us, the average citizen who shot this person after the fact--had we exited our vehicle and engaged in a foot pursuit and ultimately cornered and shot this person like the police did--we would be in jail tonight..... law enforcement is no different than the average person and should be treated no different.
On whether this was a bad shoot--I think we might as well agree to disagree, unless more information comes to light that proves this officer made some legitimate attempt to determine whether this person was armed before he squeezed the trigger, or made some attempt to warn the offender before he fired...
Don't get me wrong--I'm not anti-law enforcement, but I just think they deserve NO special treatment whatsoever--I just feel the EXACT same laws that apply to us should apply to them....
