To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you care to read it, the main case on shooting fleeing felons is Tennessee v. Garner. Link here: FindLaw | Cases and Codes


The key holding is this:

"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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [SIZE=-1][/SIZE] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

In the criminal case, my argument would be that the suspect first lied to the officer during the traffic stop, then, when the officer went to go run his identity, the suspect took off running from the car. When the officer caught him, the suspect physically resisted arrest, including grabbing at his taser. The officer, in the split second he had to make a decision, reasonably believed that the suspect, though not an immediate danger to him, had repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to engage in violent felonious contact such that the use of deadly force to prevent his escape back into public, was justified.

I only have to convince one of 12 people that there is enough there that reasonable doubt exists as to whether it was criminal to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Yea your stance is looking real dumb on this. Just double down on it, smart move.

Cops just being cops.

Since my last post calling you a child was deleted. I will ask a bit nicer of how, in your foolish brain, can you link three incidents over six month span into widespread incompetence?

I require proof, you child. Either provide it or shut up.
 
No thanks. Don't need a judge or lawyer to know pumping a clip into a guy's back while he is running from you, is moronic.

Getting closer to believing guns should be available to only a very select group of cops within a department.
 
Since my last post calling you a child was deleted. I will ask a bit nicer of how, in your foolish brain, can you link three incidents over six month span into widespread incompetence?

I require proof, you child. Either provide it or shut up.

Damn. Wish they had not deleted it. I prefer for people to see how our cops think.

If this were a traffic stop, I think you would have shot me by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Damn. Wish they had not deleted it. I prefer for people to see how our cops think.

If this were a traffic stop, I think you would have shot me by now.

You know something? I'm a retired cop. So this is a private citizen calling you a child.

Proof or shut up. Two choices. Continue showing the world what a child you are or shut up while you're way behind.
 
Hate boners just went from six to midnight ITT.

It's foogin' wild, mate.

I just entirely dislike when people start talking **** and have zero proof to back up what they are saying. It's why I do not miss VolMav in the least.

That's why I respect your posts Dink. You typically know when to back off if you don't know about something or make it completely so over the top it's obvious you're joking around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I just entirely dislike when people start talking **** and have zero proof to back up what they are saying. It's why I do not miss VolMav in the least.

That's why I respect your posts Dink. You typically know when to back off if you don't know about something or make it completely so over the top it's obvious you're joking around.
You know I don't love these hoes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top