George Floyd Protest/Riots

#9,651
#9,651
evillawyer said:
No one is trying to excuse the resisting. The issue is whether a man who has been patted down and found to be unarmed, who then resists arrest, breaks free, unsuccessfully attempts to use a non-lethal weapon on the cops, but then runs in the opposite direction, can be shot and killed.
Click to expand...
And I said I thought shooting the man was wrong. But it very much seems that some are trying to excuse this culture of resisting arrest. In both this case and the Floyd case I think police response resulted in excessive force, which is unacceptable, but also true in both cases, if neither man resists arrest, odds are high they're both still alive. I don't see that message out there. I'm all for police reform and addressing the issue of excessive force, but we also need to address that people need to cooperate with the police and fight their battles in court. Do not compound the situation. At the least, it results in additional charges, and at its worst, it results in death.

You can't hold dead men accountable, so I understand why police response gets the most attention, but we cannot ignore what the victims did wrong as well if we really want to find solutions. Both need to be addressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and oz615
#9,654
#9,654
Weezer said:
And I said I thought shooting the man was wrong. But it very much seems that some are trying to excuse this culture of resisting arrest. In both this case and the Floyd case I think police response resulted in excessive force, which is unacceptable, but also true in both cases, if neither man resists arrest, odds are high they're both still alive. I don't see that message out there. I'm all for police reform and addressing the issue of excessive force, but we also need to address that people need to cooperate with the police and fight their battles in court. Do not compound the situation. At the least, it results in additional charges, and at its worst, it results in death.

You can't hold dead men accountable, so I understand why police response gets the most attention, but we cannot ignore what the victims did wrong as well if we really want to find solutions. Both need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

I agree it's never wise to resist arrest, but it's probably also not wise for a woman to wear a see-through bikini to a party with drunk men. Doesn't do anything to excuse any sexual assault that happens to her.
 
#9,655
#9,655
rjd970 said:
The video sure looked like he was complying before it went bad.

Then why not give him a ride home, or let him call someone to pick him up? Why is it necessary to arrest a guy who I guess was just sleeping in his car? It wasn’t like he was swerving all over the place and being a danger to anyone.

And I do know the law, he has every right to refuse that breathalyzer, and for that matter to answer any questions. He was trying to comply and reason with the officers, at least in the beginning.
Click to expand...
Passed out drunk and high in the middle of the roadway is not sleeping 🙄 and you don’t know his history when they ran it. They have every right to arrest him and you obviously

DON’T know the law because Implied Consent means if he refused the sobriety tests he would immediately be arrested and license suspended (if it already wasn’t)

Again you are making excuses saying the officers were wrong when 100% of this death is due to the actions of the criminal

-he chose to drive drunk/high
-he chose to pass out in middle of lane
-he chose to argue
-he chose to resist a legal arrest
-he chose to fight and assault two officers
-he chose to steal one of their weapons
-he chose to use it on them
-he chose to run with said weapon
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, VolunteerHillbilly, TrumpedUpVol and 1 other person
#9,656
#9,656
rjd970 said:
It’s a valid question why at that point the police wouldn’t just let him walk to his sisters house. I’m not an expert and I don’t know what the officer’s thinking is. But why not just diffuse the situation, let the guy walk home, and go about your shift?
Click to expand...

It's also valid to say he wasn't complying with the police if he resisted arrest, wrestled away a taser, and attempted to flee. Police response was excessive, but this narrative that he was compliant is false. If the police feel an arrest is warranted, let it happen. Fight your battles in court, not on the street.
 
#9,657
#9,657
Rickyvol77 said:
tennessee Vs Garner. Pretty open and shut case
Click to expand...

He had been patted down and a taser is a non-lethal weapon. Under Garner, deadly force can be used against a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tasers don't present a significant threat of death or serious injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#9,659
#9,659
evillawyer said:
I agree it's never wise to resist arrest, but it's probably also not wise for a woman to wear a see-through bikini to a party with drunk men. Doesn't do anything to excuse any sexual assault that happens to her.
Click to expand...
Again, I didn't say it excused excessive force, but it seems you are trying to excuse resisting arrest. Neither is acceptable.
 
#9,660
#9,660
evillawyer said:
I agree it's never wise to resist arrest, but it's probably also not wise for a woman to wear a see-through bikini to a party with drunk men. Doesn't do anything to excuse any sexual assault that happens to her.
Click to expand...
Wearing a bikini isn’t a violent felony causing an immediate threat to others
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
#9,661
#9,661
Rickyvol77 said:
He did pose a threat with the taser. To say otherwise is simply ignorant
Click to expand...
Am I wrong to think that the shooter may have thought that the dead man could have had his partner's gun, and that was he was aiming at him? Not that it makes any difference whether it was a taser or a gun. The thought that he had my partner's weapon would be my defense.
 
#9,662
#9,662
evillawyer said:
He had been patted down and a taser is a non-lethal weapon. Under Garner, deadly force can be used against a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tasers don't present a significant threat of death or serious injury.
Click to expand...
Lol I thought you were a lawyer?

A taser is a less than lethal not a “non-lethal” weapon. It can cause death or serious bodily injury especially if used by an untrained criminal in the act of a felony

Not only that the suspect was clearly a violent fleeing felon in possession of a weapon he used and posed a threat to the public
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
#9,663
#9,663
Rickyvol77 said:
Passed out drunk and high in the middle of the roadway is not sleeping 🙄 and you don’t know his history when they ran it. They have every right to arrest him and you obviously

DON’T know the law because Implied Consent means if he refused the sobriety tests he would immediately be arrested and license suspended (if it already wasn’t)

Again you are making excuses saying the officers were wrong when 100% of this death is due to the actions of the criminal

-he chose to drive drunk/high
-he chose to pass out in middle of lane
-he chose to argue
-he chose to resist a legal arrest
-he chose to fight and assault two officers
-he chose to steal one of their weapons
-he chose to use it on them
-he chose to run with said weapon
Click to expand...
The officer chose to use lethal force when it wasn't necessary. I think the man contributed to the situation, but he's not 100% responsible for his death. That still falls on the officer and his chosen response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW
#9,664
#9,664
Weezer said:
The officer chose to use lethal force when it wasn't necessary. I think the man contributed to the situation, but he's not 100% responsible for his death. That still falls on the officer and his chosen response.
Click to expand...
You are wrong on this one. At least on Floyd and Arbery there are clear arguments on the other side, this one is 100% clean and legal and justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#9,665
#9,665
Rickyvol77 said:
Passed out drunk and high in the middle of the roadway is not sleeping 🙄 and you don’t know his history when they ran it. They have every right to arrest him and you obviously

DON’T know the law because Implied Consent means if he refused the sobriety tests he would immediately be arrested and license suspended (if it already wasn’t)

Again you are making excuses saying the officers were wrong when 100% of this death is due to the actions of the criminal

-he chose to drive drunk/high
-he chose to pass out in middle of lane
-he chose to argue
-he chose to resist a legal arrest
-he chose to fight and assault two officers
-he chose to steal one of their weapons
-he chose to use it on them
-he chose to run with said weapon
Click to expand...

I do know implied consent, that still means he has every right to not answer any question. Pray tell, where does it state anywhere he has to answer anything? Like I said, I’ve taken more than a couple tickets to court and had them thrown out. I know the law well enough to get the bogus harassment **** thrown out on its weak merits.

100% due to the criminal? There is blame on both sides. You are completely FOS and willfully ignorant if you are going to sit here and argue his intent was to stay and fight and try to kill these officers.

Should he have resisted? No. Should the officer have shot him in the back while he was running away? Again, no. Would he still be alive if either party had acted differently? Yes.

Someone needs to tell me where the safety of LEO takes precedence over the safety of the citizens they are there to serve.
 
#9,666
#9,666
Rickyvol77 said:
He was not complying. He fought them, assaulted both of them and shot them with a taser. They aren’t allowed to let an intoxicated person walk home because if he gets hit by a car or something they will get sued Learn the law
Click to expand...
This makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#9,667
#9,667
evillawyer said:
He had been patted down and a taser is a non-lethal weapon. Under Garner, deadly force can be used against a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tasers don't present a significant threat of death or serious injury.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I bet that while the officer was on an adrenaline high and chasing the suspect who had just fought with them was thinking...……………………………."let me think this through. We patted this guy down, at least my partner did, I think, and he didn't have a weapon on him , I don't think. So, I should just let this drunk guy run. He probably won't try to drag some poor old lady out of her car and steal it and drive off. Oh no, he's aiming something at me and he's shooting it. Could we have missed a hidden weapon, or is it my partner's gun, or ....wait.....he did wrestle the taser away from me or was it my partner's taser? Let me ask myself...…......…......….Do I feel lucky? Well, do I ...…PUNK?"
 
#9,669
#9,669
Rickyvol77 said:
You are wrong on this one. At least on Floyd and Arbery there are clear arguments on the other side, this one is 100% clean and legal and justified.
Click to expand...
It was unnecessary. Whether or not it fits the definition police use for a justifiable shoot, it was unnecessary. Given the current situation, we clearly need to reevaluate what constitutes "justified".
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#9,670
#9,670
rjd970 said:
I do know implied consent, that still means he has every right to not answer any question. Pray tell, where does it state anywhere he has to answer anything? Like I said, I’ve taken more than a couple tickets to court and had them thrown out. I know the law well enough to get the bogus harassment **** thrown out on its weak merits.

100% due to the criminal? There is blame on both sides. You are completely FOS and willfully ignorant if you are going to sit here and argue his intent was to stay and fight and try to kill these officers.

Should he have resisted? No. Should the officer have shot him in the back while he was running away? Again, no. Would he still be alive if either party had acted differently? Yes.

Someone needs to tell me where the safety of LEO takes precedence over the safety of the citizens they are there to serve.
Click to expand...
Well if you know about implied consent why did you say he could refuse when he still would be arrested? You clearly aren’t versed in law because you didn’t understand why they didn’t let him “walk to his sisters house”🙄

And “harassment”? Jesus he was passed out in the middle of a drive thru behind the wheel of a running car? I guess the police should have told the callers to 911 “no biggie we might harass someone by talking to them”? 😂. They did nothing that was discrimination or harassment
 
#9,671
#9,671
rjd970 said:
GTFO.

He. Was. Running. Away.

So now he’s not an immediate threat to the police, but potentially to others? So he gets shot?
Click to expand...
Yes he could’ve easily used the taser to carjack someone or break into someone’s house to hide from police. A clear threat to others. Tennessee vs Garner. All day long. Easy case
 
#9,672
#9,672
Weezer said:
It was unnecessary. Whether or not it fits the definition police use for a justifiable shoot, it was unnecessary. Given the current situation, we clearly need to reevaluate what constitutes "justified".
Click to expand...
And if they hadn’t shot him and he got away and carjacked a woman and hurt her, you would say the police should’ve stopped him
 
#9,673
#9,673
Rickyvol77 said:
And if they hadn’t shot him and he got away and carjacked a woman and hurt her, you would say the police should’ve stopped him
Click to expand...
The police should have stopped him, but stopped him doesn't mean kill him.
 
#9,675
#9,675
Last night I had completely forgotten about the white kid who died from being tazed multiple times (necessary because he was so high he wouldn't go down) in front of the Cannery a few years ago. All we heard for months was how deadly tazers are and how the things should be banned. Which is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: oz615, golfballs and Rickyvol77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top