james lambert 3,059 Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Only 5 or 6 percent are of the age group that is most dangerous. when 5 percent are doing over half of all violent crime, its pretty clear where the problem lies. Let that soak in.....5 percent doing more violent crime than the other 95 percent combined. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mullet Man 2,114 Posted November 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 3: He was hit after he hit the ground... that's BULLSHIT and while the first shot was legit the one on the ground was a unjustified. Pre-meditated doesn't seem likely. I read (don't know if it's true), that over half of the 16 shots fired, were when he was on the ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
6500rpm 670 Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) I didn't watch the video and after initially hearing the story my thought was that the cop fucked up from the 5 second news clip I did see. Unless you know what happened, start to finish it's just an opinion. I can say my brother had 33 years on the force before he retired and PCP is a bad deal. Several stories about someone on the drug taking on multiple people with pepper spray and tasers not having much effect. Another story dealing with the use of an ASP (he preferred a baton) was that he trained to break bones with a single hit and put an end to the situation quickly. Multiple hits are easily documented to look like you were just beating on someone to inflict pain (police abuse). I think the same applies to things like this. One kill shot to the head, or a double tap is much easier to defend against than dumping your entire mag. 16 shots is going to be hard to justify. Shortly after the Brown deal in Ferguson, city coppers shot a man with a knife-in that case he told me that deadly force was justified because it's been proven that ia person with a knife 20 feet away can get to you before you can draw your weapon. Edited November 26, 2015 by 6500rpm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 3: He was hit after he hit the ground... that's BULLSHIT and while the first shot was legit the one on the ground was a unjustified. Pre-meditated doesn't seem likely. I read (don't know if it's true), that over half of the 16 shots fired, were when he was on the ground. I couldn't tell that from the video, but I could clearly see at least once shot exciting and ricochet off the road behind the fallen suspect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
evlblkwpnz 3,418 Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Regardless of what happened at this moment, he made a series of poor decisions that put him there. Not doing PCP would have been a great idea and staying home or at least off of the street while on PCP would have been an even better idea. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) Just to clarify, and I do believe deadly force was appropriate just maybe not in so much quantity once he was down, THOSE OFFICERS did not shoot him only THAT ONE that is being charged with murder. If they were in so much fear of their lives more than one would have likely fired. That is what will bring this guy down on charges. Not that he used deadly force but the number of shots and lack of support from other officers shows his willingness to fire on the assailant Edited November 26, 2015 by VR6Shooter 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigChongus 765 Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Officer charged with Murder yesterday. 16 shots fired. I don't recall if he was hit with all 16 or not. All 16 confirmed body shots from autopsy. He wont get first degree but they'll make an example of him. Biggest issue is even with assailant having a weapon and refusing orders no other officer on scene but that one fired any shots (AKA he was the racist one) Yep, I just came across the autopsy diagram of the shots. 2015-11-19-08_20_49-Capture.png What are the recovery marks? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mullet Man 2,114 Posted November 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 What are the recovery marks? Bullets that didn't exit the body. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." I'm not certain of how accurate this is (wiki) but it sure makes alot of sense to me.... That was common law. Keep in mind that this country was founded on the conviction that sticking to unmodified Blackstone common law = oppression. That's why our country has things like Tennessee v Garner. ~ Disobeying or fleeing an officer is not a good enough reason to die. Threatening or appearing to threaten someone's life right now is. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
siminov 164 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 "Threatening or appearing to threaten someone's life right now is." Like stabbing a police cruiser? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 A car has a 'life'?????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) The threat is inherent in the violent action of attacking the police car. If a person was to come up to my car and violently damages it (the act of damaging it is inherently violent), I would fear for my safety. If the person was then to proceed to further threaten me with words or actions and move towards me, I would be fully justified by the chain of events in defending myself by any means necessary to stop the threat. The chain of events in this encounter lead me, and hopefully any other sane person, to believe that the deceased posed an immediate and dire threat to anyone nearby. Armed, irrational, violent, refusing lawful orders from LE, damaging city property, attempting to flee LE, posing an immediate threat to officers and citizens... That is a long chain of events, a chain which needed breaking before anyone got hurt. Edited December 12, 2015 by ChileRelleno 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Careful there, Chili... you're making sense again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned the "Tueller Drill," which proved that a man armed with a knife who is 21 feet away or less IS a LETHAL threat. Of course, you won't hear about that on any of the news outlets, of course. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Careful there, Chili... you're making sense again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned the "Tueller Drill," which proved that a man armed with a knife who is 21 feet away or less IS a LETHAL threat. Of course, you won't hear about that on any of the news outlets, of course. Post #25 mentioned it 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mullet Man 2,114 Posted December 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Careful there, Chili... you're making sense again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned the "Tueller Drill," which proved that a man armed with a knife who is 21 feet away or less IS a LETHAL threat. Of course, you won't hear about that on any of the news outlets, of course. That drill is based off of a holstered pistol. NOT drawn and sighted like in the video. The Tueller 21ft drill is irrelevant in this instance. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Careful there, Chili... you're making sense again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned the "Tueller Drill," which proved that a man armed with a knife who is 21 feet away or less IS a LETHAL threat. Of course, you won't hear about that on any of the news outlets, of course. That drill is based off of a holstered pistol. NOT drawn and sighted like in the video. The Tueller 21ft drill is irrelevant in this instance. Yes and no. I agree that the 21 foot rule is in regard to a holstered pistol and not one drawn and leveled on target. That said the suspect is arguably close to lunging distance.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Yeah and this was just an accident. http://www.chicoer.com/general-news/20151210/paradise-officer-wont-face-charges-for-shooting-dui-suspect The video http://revolution-news.com/accidental-no-charges-for-unwarranted-police-shooting/ *sighs* When the hell comes down just remember why it happened. Accident my old white ass Only ones accidental enough Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mullet Man 2,114 Posted December 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) Careful there, Chili... you're making sense again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned the "Tueller Drill," which proved that a man armed with a knife who is 21 feet away or less IS a LETHAL threat. Of course, you won't hear about that on any of the news outlets, of course. That drill is based off of a holstered pistol. NOT drawn and sighted like in the video. The Tueller 21ft drill is irrelevant in this instance. Yes and no. I agree that the 21 foot rule is in regard to a holstered pistol and not one drawn and leveled on target. That said the suspect is arguably close to lunging distance.. I don't understand the "Yes and no"? The "drill" is not an argument in favor, it just doesn't pertain to this shooting. The distance was close, the officer was drawn. It's irrelevant. Edited December 12, 2015 by Mullet Man Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Careful there, Chili... you're making sense again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned the "Tueller Drill," which proved that a man armed with a knife who is 21 feet away or less IS a LETHAL threat. Of course, you won't hear about that on any of the news outlets, of course. That drill is based off of a holstered pistol. NOT drawn and sighted like in the video. The Tueller 21ft drill is irrelevant in this instance. Yes and no. I agree that the 21 foot rule is in regard to a holstered pistol and not one drawn and leveled on target. That said the suspect is arguably close to lunging distance.. I don't understand the "Yes and no"? The "drill" is not an argument in favor, it just doesn't pertain to this shooting. The distance was close, the officer was drawn. It's irrelevant. I just mean that the lethality of the knife is not negated by the simple presence of a firearm. Leveled or not, you may shoot the suspect, but that doesn't guarantee his knife won't penetrate you too. Watch the following video and notice how quickly the man with the knife kills the first cop. Skip to minute 7:25 for the carnage to begin. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 What a mess! It took wwaayyy too long before any shots were fired. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.