If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The report also cited the city for failing to adequately investigate and discipline the officers involved in using excessive force. They said that investigators conducting reviews admitted that their goal was to paint the accused officers in the most positive light.
I'd like to know who the investigators worked for. Of course, I'm not sure how to implement a 'neutral' investigator without politicizing the issue.
We did our research: In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified. There was one shooting we found, in 2005, that was ruled justified by the department and an inquest, but additional evidence provided by citizens caused the DA to charge the officer. The city of Milwaukee settled with a confidentiality agreement and the facts of that sealed. The officer involved committed suicide.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday that he would veto a proposed law criminalizing the use of chokeholds by police.
The law, which was introduced to the City Council last November, would make chokeholds a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison, a $2,500 fine, or both.
The paper quoted an unnamed source at City Hall that said de Blasio "believes NYPD internal policy remains the best way to monitor and regulate."
"He has said he wants to make sure that this technique is available to cops in a life-and-death situation," Councilman Rory Lancman, who introduced the chokehold bill to the City Council
What is the point of banning a chokehold if there is no repercussions for using it?
"I know there [have] been concerns in the past about police officers being able to defend themselves if their life is in jeopardy," Williams told the station. "But the way the bill is crafted, it doesn’t change the penal code which allows a police officer to do what they need to do to protect themselves if their life is in danger... I think it’s very premature to be talking about veto."
This guy takes "dirty cop" to a whole new level ....
If Louis Scarcella was considered one of New York’s finest, then the word fine leaves much to be desired.
By all accounts, the former NYPD detective is a bad man who helped put innocent people behind bars for decades, used phony witnesses to get the job done, and even beating some suspects into false confessions. And he is costing the city millions of dollars. You know you’re bad when you have a reputation among prisoners for being crooked or when the district attorney begs the judge to throw out the convictions of people you arrested.
Scarcella, 62, was on the force for nearly three decades, stationed in Brooklyn. And he had an impressive record of nabbing killers, doing whatever it took to get suspects to talk. As Sean Flynn reported in GQ magazine, the heavily decorated Scarcella received Chief of Detectives’ Award for Outstanding Police Investigation for the cases he purportedly solved.
Well-respected and even legendary, this hotshot detective was believable. Scarcella had investigated 241 murders — many of them high-profile and in the media — and even served as an expert, appearing on the Dr. Phil show, in 2007 to discuss false confessions from the police perspective. As was reported in The Village Voice, Scarcella told Dr. Phil that he never had a confession that did not corroborate and turned out to be false. “I will do whatever I have to do within the law to get a confession or to get someone to cooperate with me.”
“Are there rules when it comes to homicide? No. No, there are none,” he added.
Yet, Detective Scarcella was found out to be a sham only last year, 13 years after he retired.
Last year, one of Scarcella’s arrestees was released from prison. In 1991, David Ranta was convicted of the 1990 shooting death of Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger, a prominent rabbi in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. This despite the fact there was no physical evidence linking Ranta to the murder. And yet, there were two witnesses who pointed the finger at Ranta, and there was a confession, all of which Ranta, who proclaimed his innocence, denied. And with good reason.
In 2014, Brooklyn prosecutors took the extreme step of asking a judge to release Mr. Ranta after spending 20 years behind bars. He had no business being in prison, and the city paid Ranta $6.4 million. He didn’t even have time to take out his pen to sue the city. He suffered from a heart attack the day after his release.
Although Ranta is white, Scarcella’s victims typically were of color and poor.
Last year, the Kings County District Attorney’s office announced they would investigate fifty-seven cases in which an arrest by Detective Scarcella led to a conviction.
Just this week, it was announced that the City of New York will pay $17 million to three half-brothers — Alvena Jennette, Robert Hill and the estate of Darryl Austin. The men spent a combined 60 years behind bars for murders in the 1980s they did not commit, thanks to Scarcella’s handiwork. Jennette was paroled in 2007 after serving nearly two decades in prison, while Hill was released last year when charges against him were dismissed after spending 27 years in prison. Meanwhile, Austin had died in prison in 2000 after serving 13 years. Of the $17 million, $7.15 million was awarded to Hill, $6 million to Jennette and $3.85 million to Austin’s estate.
So far, Scarcella has cost the city of New York $24 million in settlements. Scott Stringer, the city comptroller, said the city is settling such cases in an effort to avoid lengthy, drawn out litigation. Similarly, the city plans to settle the $75 million Eric Garner case.
Last Friday, a Brooklyn court vacated the 1991 murder conviction of Derrick Hamilton, who said Scarcella had pressured a witness to name him as the killer. As was reported in The New York Times, Hamilton had learned many convictions involving Detective Scarcella often used the same witnesses and resulted in false or coerced confessions. Hamilton — who was released after prosecutors admitted the key witness in the case, the victim’s girlfriend, lied — maintained his innocence for 21 years.
It is not so far-fetched to believe that other cases involving Scarcella will come to the fore. After all, as GQ noted, one “crackhead” prostitute was a key witness, and typically the only witness, in six Scarcella cases. In addition to coercing confessions, the detective has also been accused of coaching witnesses and trading drugs for testimony on numerous occasions.
Sundhe Moses, who has been incarcerated upstate for 18 years for the killing of a 4-year-old girl in Brownsville, Brooklyn, claims the discredited detective beat him until he confessed. “Scarcella is a really dirty cop,” Moses, 37, told the Daily News. “He beat me until I signed that confession … I am angry. My life is gone. This confession is why I am in prison.”
Meanwhile, Rosean Hargrave, 40, hopes to be exonerated amid claims Scarcella framed him.
Scarcella conjures up images of Jon Burge, a former Chicago cop who tortured at least 120 black men over a period of over 20 years between 1972 and 1991. Burge served prison time and was able to keep his pension, while Scarcella remains a free man.
Police officers such as Louis Scarcella give good cops a bad name, this much is certain, but he is merely the tip of the iceberg. Remember that such individuals are allowed to operate in the criminal justice system because they are part of a larger web of corruption. The Detective Scarcellas of the world are unmonitored, given free reign to commit their wrongdoing, and are even awarded medals for it.
Moreover, Scarcella never convicted or sentenced innocent people; he merely arrested them. And he was on the force at a time of high crime, the crack epidemic, when public officials wanted to show they were taking bold steps to combat crime, even if they were secretly framing innocent people. Dirty cops, corrupt prosecutors and unscrupulous judges join forces with ineffective defense lawyers and gullible juries to create this problem.
Meanwhile, former Kings County D.A. Charles Hynes, who was head prosecutor when Scarcella was a Brooklyn cop, faces criminal charges in light of a report he may have paid his media consultant for political work with $200,000 seized from criminals.
So if Louis Scarcella ever goes down, he’d better take others down with him.
I doubt any of them would willingly associate themselves with a radical faction of the communist party, yet there they are. Hilarious.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Some idiots, er, protesters, this morning blocked both the north and south highways into Boston. One group put their arms in cement barrels so it would take a saw to get them out. The other apparently just used chains and PVC pipe. At least one ambulance had to be diverted from its destination. While I am sympathetic to the real Ferguson/NYC issues, these jackasses did not do the cause any favors.
Our local Fox affiliate did a report on an activist who went through "use of force" training"
We've seen protests all across the country after police officers have been accused of shooting people who aren't armed. Jarrett Maupin, a vocal critic of police during recent protests, went through force training with local authorities. FOX 10's Troy Hayden also went through the training and discusses the results.
Our local Fox affiliate did a report on an activist who went through "use of force" training"
Very strong video for supporting the fact that things happen very quickly. Can't argue with that. Unfortunately, it does little to address the scenarios discussed in this thread. For instance, let's take it back to what started this all off and the Mike Brown situation. It's one thing to show a training video where we can all see the unarmed man approaching very aggressively and he ends up getting shot. Justifiably so. It's quite another to shoot an unarmed man, chase him 150 ft down the street as he tries to flee, and then suddenly he decides he wants to be "Super Thug" and turn around and "charge" the same cop who had already shot him twice through a hail of bullets.
The issue isn't whether Darren Wilson would have been justified in shooting Mike Brown if that actually happened. He would have been. The issue is whether or not Darren Wilson's story was credible. And it was not.
More of that "cops can do no wrong" attitude on display .....
A North Miami Police department is under fire after a woman discovered that not only were police using actual mug shots of African-American men for shooting targets at a firing range but one of the men in the photo, bearing bullet holes from a police pistol, was the woman's brother.
On Saturday, Sgt. Valerie Deant went to a shooting range with other soldiers from the Florida Army National Guard for "annual weapons qualifications training," according to NBC Miami.
North Miami Beach Police snipers had used the range before them and once Deant and her fellow soldiers arrived they were shocked to see that African American male mug shots were used as target practice. Upon closer inspection, Deant found that one of the men in the photos was her brother, Woody Deant whose mug shot was taken 15 years ago, "after he was arrested in connection to a drag race in 2000 that left two people dead," NBC Miami reports.
"I was like why is my brother being used for target practice?" Deant told the news station. "There were like gunshots there, and I cried a couple of times."
Woody Deant was 18 at the time the mug shot photo was taken.
"The picture actually has like bullet holes," Woody Deant told the news station. "One in my forehead and one in my eye. …I was speechless."
According to the NBC Miami the Medley Firearms Training Center leases the shooting range to law enforcement agencies in the area and are not responsible for supplying targets to visitors.
While North Miami Beach Police Chief J. Scott Dennis admits that the snipers could have used better judgment, he doesn't believe that the use of an all African-American photo lineup for target practice is racial profiling and added that his sniper team has minority officers. Dennis also told the news station that, "pictures are vital for facial recognition drills."
"Our policies were not violated," Dennis said. "There is no discipline forthcoming from the individuals who were involved with this."
The news station investigative team did some digging and after speaking with "federal and state law enforcement agencies and five local police departments that have SWAT and sniper teams" no other department uses actual mug shots for target practice.
"The use of those targets doesn’t seem correct," Alex Vasquez, a retired FBI agent, told NBC Miami. "The police have different options for targets. I think the police have to be extra careful and sensitive to some issues that might be raised."
Dennis told the news station that while his police department uses pictures of whites and Hispanic males for target practice his chief concern was that one of the photos used was of someone his officer's arrested.
"That individual would be someone that was on the streets of North Miami Beach," Dennis told the news station.
The police chief added that his department has no intention of changing its practices and will continue using human targets just not booking photos of suspects they arrested. He will also make sure that officers remove target practice photos from the range once they are done shooting.
"This can create a very dangerous situation," Attorney Andell Brown, an attorney for the Deant family told NBC Miami. "And it has been ingrained in your subconscious what does that mean when someone [police] comes across Woody or another person on the street and their decision-making process on using deadly force or not."
This concerns Woody Deant who served four years in prison but tells the news station that his life is nothing like that now.
"I'm not even living that life according to how they portrayed me as. I’m a father. I’m a husband. I’m a career man. I work 9-to-5," he said. "Now I’m being used as a target?"
So they weren't ACTUALLY SHOOTING AT PEOPLE, but just at a paper target.
Come on man....
Very, very poor form to use a real person's photo at a firing range, whether you're a cop or not. Anyone who's spent a significant amount of time at a range will tell you that.
I dunno, I've put holes through Hitler, George Wallace and even Putin. I guess it depends on who. My favorite was the "Little Tiffany" from MIB, but she was just a drawing.
I dunno, I've put holes through Hitler, George Wallace and even Putin. I guess it depends on who. My favorite was the "Little Tiffany" from MIB, but she was just a drawing.
The use of mug shots of only blacks is just another symptom of the problem and further reinforces a bias.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'll have to say that is truly messed up. I recall hearing after the military changed from bullseye type targets to ones that resembled people the hesitation to fire rate dropped. Any truth in that?
While I understand your aggravation, protest isn't supposed to be convenient for the others. Usually it's more effective if it isn't.
This wasn't the march on Washington. They are not MLK. Being annoying is not a good way to get attention for the cause.
There are plenty of safe public spaces to protest at, which make a lot more sense, and tie in better to the message, than the middle of a highway. Police headquarters. City Hall. The highway is not safe for pedestrians, for drivers... for patients trying to get to hospitals. If they'd gotten hurt as well... Who would you blame? As it is, I have a hard time mustering sympathy for them when I heard they complained their arms hurt after officers removed them from the cement barrels... they put themselves in.
This wasn't the march on Washington. They are not MLK. Being annoying is not a good way to get attention for the cause.
There are plenty of safe public spaces to protest at, which make a lot more sense, and tie in better to the message, than the middle of a highway. Police headquarters. City Hall. The highway is not safe for pedestrians, for drivers... for patients trying to get to hospitals. If they'd gotten hurt as well... Who would you blame? As it is, I have a hard time mustering sympathy for them when I heard they complained their arms hurt after officers removed them from the cement barrels... they put themselves in.
Word.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I dunno, I've put holes through Hitler, George Wallace and even Putin. I guess it depends on who. My favorite was the "Little Tiffany" from MIB, but she was just a drawing.
Dead tyrannical dictators and public figures are way, way different then a mug shot of a person you've arrested. Surely you see this, right?
I was sitting at a stop light today when I saw a cop. The thought crossed my mind that I should drive through the light when no one was coming, then when the officer stopped me and asked
"do you no why I pulled you over?"
Me: "No".
Cop: "You ran that light".
Me: So? There was no one coming.
Cop: "It's the law, you could have accidentally killed someone"
me: You mean like accidentally choking someone to death without repercussion? Or accidentally shooting someone 3-4 times in the back while they sit in their car?
I realize "not all police are like that..." but it seems they all support these cops and have all the excuses in the world for why we should understand them.... and I do understand. I would even consider taking their side more if it weren't for the blatant hypocrisy. Does anyone here think you yourselves could get away with any kind of 'mistake', even non violent mistakes, and not have the cops try to crucify you to build their case stats?
I mean you can't even accidentally text a video of your penis to some soccer players without the police running a full on case that ends up getting you arrested and costing you a 100 grand in bond money. ... And that crime doesnt even hurt anybody.
A St. Louis County, Mo., police chief has apologized to a 22-year-old student who was brutally beaten by police officers who were pursuing another man, according to Raw Story, citing a report at KMOV Channel 4.
The incident began Thursday when officers were pursuing a suspect named Anton Simmons on Interstate 70 outside St. Louis when student Joseph Swink lost control of his car and crashed as he tried to clear a path for police vehicles, St. Ann Police Chief Aaron Jimenez said in a press conference on Friday, the report says.
When Swink’s car became filled with smoke, he darted from the vehicle, only to be tackled and beaten bloody by officers who mistook him for Simmons, who had 17 separate warrants out for his arrest, according to the news outlet.
“They ended up grabbing him [Swink], tossing him to the ground, and were trying to handcuff him,” Jimenez said, the report says. “All the sirens and lights were going off. It was very loud and they couldn’t hear anything the citizen was saying.”
Swink, an accounting student at University of Missouri – St. Louis with no criminal record, reportedly suffered serious injuries to his left ear and his vehicle was totaled, the report says. He was on his way home from an internship when he unwittingly became involved in the police chase.
“I never really had 100 percent trust in police before,” Swink said to Channel 4. “But I really don’t now.”
I'm missing the million dollar question: Was he resisting arrest?
Also, the police chief said officers won't be disciplined, because if you beat up a guy in good faith, it's ok. (Same with killing)
Nope. As he fled his vehicle because it was filling up with smoke the cops IMMEDIATELY tackled him and beat his ass. It's quite telling when neither the article nor the police chief's statement even suggested he "resisted arrest" and immediately apologized.
Yeah, but if he doesn't go ragdoll on tackle, in most cases that counts as resisting arrest. Hence the assbeating. Considering he got blind-sided, I doubt he was fully cooperative.
Yeah, but if he doesn't go ragdoll on tackle, in most cases that counts as resisting arrest. Hence the assbeating. Considering he got blind-sided, I doubt he was fully cooperative.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Of course, another way of looking at it is that the cops simply opened up a can of whoop ass on the person they THOUGHT was leading them on a high speed chase. There's a reason why young people are taught to never run from the cops. That only pisses them off and increases your chances of catching a beatdown.
Here's a different article where the typical "resisting arrest" claim is made ....
Jimenez said the fleeing car was being driven by Anton Simmons, 32, of Moline Acres, who has several outstanding warrants and a record that includes assaulting police. Simmons fled St. Ann officers on eastbound I-70, struck Swink’s car and kept going. A few miles east near Air Flight Drive, Simmons stopped after driving down an embankment and striking a St. Ann police car, Jimenez said.
That’s when police reported a crash over their radios, and officers thought Swink was Simmons.
Swink “gets out and runs toward the back of the car, so they grab him, toss him on the ground,” Jimenez said. “They didn’t Tase him. They didn’t use batons. They didn’t kick him in the face. They definitely put him on the ground and were trying to get handcuffs on him while he’s squirming around. And he’s resisting arrest because he’s trying to tell the police that it’s not him.”
Jimenez says he believes Swink was injured by his own car’s air bag during the crash, though Jimenez acknowledged the scuffle with police could have aggravated any facial wounds. As soon as the officers realized Swink was not the fleeing driver, they uncuffed him and offered medical treatment, Jimenez said.
This wasn't the march on Washington. They are not MLK. Being annoying is not a good way to get attention for the cause.
I've never made a judgement whether blocking certain roads is a good idea. But given the infringements on the freedom of speech, often under the guise to make it safer and more convenient, I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff to make. And yes, if their way to protests makes you less sympathetic to their cause, then that's the protesters's problems.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Officials and experts have previously said such a prosecution would be highly unlikely, in part because of the extraordinarily high legal standard federal prosecutors would need to meet.
To mount a federal prosecution, the Justice Department would need to show that Wilson willfully deprived Brown of his civil rights. That standard, which means prosecutors must prove that an officer knowingly used more force than the law allowed, is challenging for the government to meet. Multiple high-profile police-involved deaths, including the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant, in New York City, have not resulted in federal charges.
---
A separate, broader Justice Department-led investigation into the practices of the Ferguson police department remains open. That investigation, which will examine potential racial bias among officers, has the potential to have more sweeping consequences than any individual criminal prosecutions, experts said.
Another unarmed black man with his hands in the air has been shot by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. This time it was caught on video.
Another videotaped police killing is raising tensions in another U.S. city, this time in New Jersey, where a tense traffic stop ended with a passenger shot to death as he stepped out of a car with his hands raised at shoulder height.
The newly released footage from a police dashboard camera shows police in a Dec. 30 stop that escalates quickly after one officer warns his partner about seeing a gun in the glove compartment of the Jaguar.
Bridgeton officer Braheme Days screams over and over at the passenger, Jerame Reid, “Show me your hands!” and “If you reach for something, you’re going to be f—— dead!” The officer appears to reach into the car and remove the gun. But the brief standoff ends with Reid disregarding Days’ order to not move, stepping out and getting shot.
The shooting has sparked protests in the southern New Jersey city of about 25,000 people. The case came after months of turbulent demonstrations and violence over the killings of unarmed black men by white police officers in New York and Ferguson, Missouri. Eric Garner’s death in New York was captured on video, while Michael Brown’s in Ferguson was not.
Days is black, his partner white. The passenger was black, as was the driver.
Both officers have been placed on leave while the Cumberland County prosecutor’s office investigates.
Activists are calling on the prosecutor to transfer the case to the state attorney general. First Assistant Prosecutor Harold Shapiro would not comment on the investigation Wednesday.
“The video speaks for itself that at no point was Jerame Reid a threat and he possessed no weapon on his person,” said Walter Hudson, chair and founder of the civil rights group the National Awareness Alliance. “He complied with the officer and the officer shot him.”
Reid, 36, had spent about 13 years in prison for shooting at New Jersey State Police troopers when he was a teenager. He was also arrested last year on charges including drug possession and obstruction; Days was one of the arresting officers then.
The video was released through open records requests from the South Jersey Times and the Press of Atlantic City.
The officers had pulled over the Jaguar for rolling through a stop sign, and the encounter starts friendly. But Days suddenly steps back, pulls his gun and tells the men, “Show me your hands.” Days tells his partner there is a gun in the glove compartment and then appears to reach in and remove a handgun.
The driver, Leroy Tutt, is seen showing his hands atop the open window on his side of the car. It’s not clear what Reid is doing, though Days repeatedly warns him not to move during the standoff of less than two minutes.
“I’m going to shoot you!” Days shouts, referring to Reid at one point by his first name. “You’re going to be … dead! If you reach for something, you’re going to be … dead!”
“I ain’t got no reason to reach for nothing, bro. I ain’t got no reason to reach for nothing,” Reid says as Days continues to yell to his partner that Reid is reaching for something.
Reid then says, “I’m getting out and getting on the ground.” Days tells him not to move, but Reid repeats that he’s getting out.
The passenger door pops open and Reid emerges. His hands are at about shoulder height and appear to be empty. As he steps out, the officers fire at least six shots.
After the shooting, there are shouts from people in the area, and other police and emergency vehicles arrive.
Quick synopsis: The black cop had already removed the gun from the vehicle. The black cop tells the guy "Don't you f*cking move!" but also says "Show me your hands!". Still trying to figure out how one could possibly comply with both commands. The guy's mistake was getting out of the vehicle when he was told not to move. Though I can understand he was just trying to get on the ground and "assume the position" so to speak in order for the black cop to not feel so threatened. The guy had both hands in the air when he stepped out of the vehicle. They are both clearly visible before the black cop opened fire with several rounds. And to add insult to injury ... the white cop shot the guy in the back.
Is this guy dead because the officers had a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury? No! The gun had been removed from the vehicle, his hands were in the air, and he told the officer TWICE he was getting on the ground. He's dead for failure to comply. Period.
I'm not willing to condemn the police on this one. Known cop-shooter, found with a weapon in the vehicle, insistent on not following order to stay in the vehicle, and outright warned he would be fired upon if he failed to remain inside.
Unless you can prove this was some kind of set-up, I'll most likely give the cops a pass on this.
I'm not willing to condemn the police on this one. Known cop-shooter, found with a weapon in the vehicle, insistent on not following order to stay in the vehicle, and outright warned he would be fired upon if he failed to remain inside.
Unless you can prove this was some kind of set-up, I'll most likely give the cops a pass on this.
I'm going to have to disagree for this straightforward reason. Nothing you've cited is cause for the police officer's actions. Failure to comply is simply NOT legal justification for the use of deadly force.
I'm going to have to disagree for this straightforward reason. Nothing you've cited is cause for the police officer's actions. Failure to comply is simply NOT legal justification for the use of deadly force.
OAW
Failure to comply with a gun 6 inches in front of you is a different story, however.
Without having time or opportunity to ensure there are no other weapons, yeah.
History of shooting cops + finding and removing one gun + non-compliant said cop-shooter.....
I don't have a problem with this one.
I simply have to point this out ....
"Reid, 36, had spent about 13 years in prison for shootingAT New Jersey State Police troopers when he was a teenager."
At no point in the article does it say this guy actually shot a police officer. While you may consider this to be a distinction without a difference ... I just have to point out that the parts of your statement I highlighted above are simply inaccurate. In any event, his "history" is irrelevant when it comes to the legal justification for the use of deadly force in that situation.
Looked 100% righteous to me, but of course OAW has a problem with it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Reid, 36, had spent about 13 years in prison for shootingAT New Jersey State Police troopers when he was a teenager."
At no point in the article does it say this guy actually shot a police officer. While you may consider this to be a distinction without a difference ... I just have to point out that the parts of your statement I highlighted above are simply inaccurate. In any event, his "history" is irrelevant when it comes to the legal justification for the use of deadly force in that situation.
OAW
I don't think judging whether or not someone is dangerous depends on their history of actually hitting the cops he was shooting at.
The legal justification is that the cop reasonably feared for his life, given the factors above I'd be in fear of my life too. Raise your hand if you wouldn't be reasonably in dire fear for your life in that situation.
The failure to comply statute has nothing to do with it.
1. The officer had ALREADY REMOVED THE GUN from the vehicle. So that particular weapon was neither on the guy's person nor nearby within reach. Naturally, at that point the officer did not know if the guy had another weapon on him or in the vehicle. Which leads to #2.
2. The guy told the officer TWICE he was getting out of the car to GET ON THE GROUND. This is the most compliant way to SUBMIT TO A SEARCH. The officer heard him say this because he told him not to get out.
3. The guy had his HANDS IN THE AIR as he exited the vehicle. The cop was directly in front of him so his EMPTY hands were CLEARLY VISIBLE.
You see it's not about the guy potentially being "dangerous". It's not about the officer experiencing "fear" about the situation in general. The issue is given those three facts above how was this guy posing a THREAT to the officer's life at the moment he opened fire?
1. The officer had ALREADY REMOVED THE GUN from the vehicle. So that particular weapon was neither on the guy's person nor nearby within reach. Naturally, at that point the officer did not know if the guy had another weapon on him or in the vehicle. Which leads to #2.
Irrelevant, there very likely could have been another.
2. The guy told the officer TWICE he was getting out of the car to GET ON THE GROUND. This is the most compliant way to SUBMIT TO A SEARCH. The officer heard him say this because he told him not to get out.
What the guy told the officer doesn't mean shit. In that situation you don't tell an officer anything.
3. The guy had his HANDS IN THE AIR as he exited the vehicle. The cop was directly in front of him so his EMPTY hands were CLEARLY VISIBLE.
Yeah, "hands up, going to the ground"? Does that mean he was going to allow himself to faceplant, just bounce his own head off the concrete? That's stupid.
You see it's not about the guy potentially being "dangerous". It's not about the officer experiencing "fear" about the situation in general. The issue is given those three facts above how was this guy posing a THREAT to the officer's life at the moment he opened fire?
The issue is that a dangerous felon wouldn't follow orders after a stop that involved the confiscation of a gun. Geez.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
1. The officer had ALREADY REMOVED THE GUN from the vehicle. So that particular weapon was neither on the guy's person nor nearby within reach. Naturally, at that point the officer did not know if the guy had another weapon on him or in the vehicle. Which leads to #2.
Where in the video does the cop get the chance to make sure there were no other guns or weapons?
2. The guy told the officer TWICE he was getting out of the car to GET ON THE GROUND. This is the most compliant way to SUBMIT TO A SEARCH. The officer heard him say this because he told him not to get out.
Just because the guy narrated his failure to comply does not change a damn thing. If the officer told him to stay in the car, he should have stayed in the car. What possible reason could he have for wanting to get out?
3. The guy had his HANDS IN THE AIR as he exited the vehicle. The cop was directly in front of him so his EMPTY hands were CLEARLY VISIBLE.
You know what else was clearly visible? the gun in the dash, and the perp's failure to follow an order not to move.
You see it's not about the guy potentially being "dangerous". It's not about the officer experiencing "fear" about the situation in general. The issue is given those three facts above how was this guy posing a THREAT to the officer's life at the moment he opened fire?
OAW
You'll never sell this to anyone, OAW. The threat is from his history and possession of a firearm that the police were able to recover. The police weren't able to execute a felony stop and secure the car because the suspect, with a history of attempting to kill police, started ignoring the officers commands NOT TO MOVE. He was absolutely posing a threat to officer by failing to comply with the officers commands during a legit arrest; by illegally possessing a firearm and by preventing the police from ensuring there weren't anymore under the seat or anything. The officer wasn't issuing the commands for no reason, OAW.
I think you are PRESUMING that his guy was "illegally possessing a firearm". It was found in the glove compartment so it could very we'll have belonged to the DRIVER. Morever, you have just contradicted your own argument. In your previous post you said ...
"The failure to comply statute has nothing to do with it."
But now you are saying ...
"He was absolutely posing a threat to officer by failing to comply with the officers commands during a legit arrest;"
Not to mention that the only way they would even be able to search the vehicle would be to get the occupants out and either have them get face down ON THE GROUND to be handcuffed and searched like the guy was trying to do ... or to handcuff them and put them in the back of the squad car. Now don't get me wrong. The guy was STUPID for getting out if the car when the cop had told him not to move. But I simply have to reiterate that failure to comply is NOT a legal justification for the use of deadly force. A cop can NOT legally kill someone with his HANDS IN THE AIR simply because he didn't do what he was told or because he might have another weapon on him. The guy has to engage in some sort of ACTION at that moment in time ... not simply have a "history" ... that could give the officer a "reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury". He didn't reach for a weapon. He made no sudden or unexpected movements. He simply stepped out of a vehicle with his hands in the air! Even if he had a visible gun in his waistband the fact that he had his HANDS IN THE AIR obligates the officer to NOT use deadly force. It is after all the universal sign of SURRENDER!!!
Let me be absolutely clear on my position here. If everything had gone down exactly the same but the guy got out of the car and his hands were NOT in the air ... then I would be the first to say that the officer was justified. Because he would not be able to tell if the guy had another weapon on him and was getting out to fire at the officer. But again, the fact that the officer could clearly see this guy's hands were in the air is a TRUMP CARD to all that. An officer simply can't kill a suspect in the act of SURRENDER ... armed or not. How is that even subject to debate?
OAW
PS: Imagine if this was a woman with a CCL for the weapon in the glove compartment and she was shot dead for exiting the vehicle with her hands in the air? Would the situation seemed really messed up under those circumstances?
Word.
The guy's mistake was getting out of the vehicle when he was told not to move. Though I can understand he was just trying to get on the ground and "assume the position" so to speak in order for the black cop to not feel so threatened. The guy had both hands in the air when he stepped out of the vehicle. They are both clearly visible before the black cop opened fire with several rounds. And to add insult to injury ... the white cop shot the guy in the back. 
Top