[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
which is why the whole fabricated taser justification came up.
[/quote]
Just caught this. Didn’t know it had been determined to be fabricated.
?[/quote]
Nope, you’re right. There’s not have enough information to know that.
Unfortunately, it’s probably going to come down to witness testimony, since there’s no evidence on the video of it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My understanding was the guy wrestled with the cop for the cop’s taser.[/quote]
I don’t think we really know:
[quote]Moments after the struggle, Officer Slager reported on his radio: â??Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser,â?? according to police reports.
But the video, which was taken by a bystander and provided to The New York Times by the Scott familyâ??s lawyer, presents a different account. The video begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Officer Slager fired his Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Mr. Scottâ??s body as the two men tussle and Mr. Scott turns to run.
Something â?? it is not clear whether it is the stun gun â?? is either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men, and Officer Slager draws his gun, the video shows. When the officer fires, Mr. Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.
The officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something up off the ground. Moments later, he drops an object near Mr. Scottâ??s body, the video shows.[/quote]
The video doesn’t really show us anything that happened before.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
All that’s required for a cop to legally shoot you in the back when you’re running is that you have committed a felony.
[/quote]
Well, I think that’s horse shit.
If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. I would go to jail for murder, but a cop can use lethal force when a felony has allegedly occurred. How the fuck is that fair?
Last I checked the police don’t get to be judge, jury, and executioner.[/quote]
I’m not sure this is true everywhere, especially if you shoot him on your property.
The question of is it moral comes down to the standard of non-initiation of force which police are exempt from legally. Police can initiate force to detain you and will escalate until you are subdued or dead.
A police officer not acting in immediate self-defense or in the immediate defense of others is acting immorally, but not illegally.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. [/quote]
There are places in America, where irrelevant of what the letter of the law says, aren’t going to charge you in this instance.
I live in MA, so I’d be going to prison for a long, long time. However other states are going to be a bit more understanding, depending on the circumstances.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. [/quote]
There are places in America, where irrelevant of what the letter of the law says, aren’t going to charge you in this instance.
I live in MA, so I’d be going to prison for a long, long time. However other states are going to be a bit more understanding, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]
I live in MD so I’d be going to jail…
To be clear TooHuman, I’m not trying to be a dick to you or anyone else (I realize it could come off that way). This shit just pisses me off.
I did not even know about the guy supposedly taking the officer’s taser, until today. If the guy took the officer’s taser, I can see this being justifiable or, at most, something less than murder. Every “fight” in which a police officer(or any openly armed person) is involved is a gun fight. If someone has a tool that can incapacitate the armed individual, the armed individual is justified in feeling that his life is in danger. That stress can, I imagine, lead to some somewhat altered perceptions of what is happening.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. [/quote]
There are places in America, where irrelevant of what the letter of the law says, aren’t going to charge you in this instance.
I live in MA, so I’d be going to prison for a long, long time. However other states are going to be a bit more understanding, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]
I live in MD so I’d be going to jail…[/quote]
I can’t think of any US jurisdiction where you wouldn’t. States may vary on things like duty to retreat, but the common denominator I’ve observed is that lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat to yourself or those under the mantle of your protection.
Not a past threat, not a future anticipated threat. The threat has to be present right there, right then, which a fleeing person is generally not.
Perhaps Beans can show me cases where this hasn’t been the case?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Last I checked the police don’t get to be judge, jury, and executioner.[/quote]
It’s not fair and the point of me posting this is to point out how easy it is for cops to manipulate crime scenes (he clearly at least starts to attempt to do this) in order to make something that didn’t happen. All you really need to say is they went after your gun or something along those lines and no punishment coming your way.
Let’s be honest the only reason this cop will get in trouble is he was unlucky enough to get caught on tape.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not even know about the guy supposedly taking the officer’s taser, until today. If the guy took the officer’s taser, I can see this being justifiable or, at most, something less than murder. Every “fight” in which a police officer(or any openly armed person) is involved is a gun fight. If someone has a tool that can incapacitate the armed individual, the armed individual is justified in feeling that his life is in danger. That stress can, I imagine, lead to some somewhat altered perceptions of what is happening.[/quote]
I disagree. Cops are trained to handle this exact situation. Had the deceased tried to use a taser (assuming he actually took it) on the cop, fine. The guy was 5+ feet away before the cop had his sidearm in his hand and 10+ feet away before the first round was fired.
He was not a threat at all to the cop.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not even know about the guy supposedly taking the officer’s taser, until today. If the guy took the officer’s taser, I can see this being justifiable or, at most, something less than murder. Every “fight” in which a police officer(or any openly armed person) is involved is a gun fight. If someone has a tool that can incapacitate the armed individual, the armed individual is justified in feeling that his life is in danger. That stress can, I imagine, lead to some somewhat altered perceptions of what is happening.[/quote]
The cop is saying he took his taser, some people are saying the cop USED the taser on him, we aren’t going to know. How calm the officer is while pulling the trigger on a guy who can barely run is horrifying. Just puts the rounds in him like it’s no big deal and goes about his business.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Last I checked the police don’t get to be judge, jury, and executioner.[/quote]
It’s not fair and the point of me posting this is to point out how easy it is for cops to manipulate crime scenes (he clearly at least starts to attempt to do this) in order to make something that didn’t happen. All you really need to say is they went after your gun or something along those lines and no punishment coming your way.
Let’s be honest the only reason this cop will get in trouble is he was unlucky enough to get caught on tape. [/quote]
I stopped watching when the guy collapsed to the ground so I’ll take your word on the scene manipulation.
It looks clear cut to me and like I said earlier the only way I see the cops actions as defensible (not acceptable or justifiable), in my opinion only (based on my personal beliefs), is if the deceased just got finished murdering and/or raping someone else.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. [/quote]
There are places in America, where irrelevant of what the letter of the law says, aren’t going to charge you in this instance.
I live in MA, so I’d be going to prison for a long, long time. However other states are going to be a bit more understanding, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]
I live in MD so I’d be going to jail…[/quote]
I can’t think of any US jurisdiction where you wouldn’t. States may vary on things like duty to retreat, but the common denominator I’ve observed is that lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat to yourself or those under the mantle of your protection.
Not a past threat, not a future anticipated threat. The threat has to be present right there, right then, which a fleeing person is generally not.
Perhaps Beans can show me cases where this hasn’t been the case?
[/quote]
I’m saying you walk into you home and catch someone raping your wife… As you draw he gets up to leave and by the time you fire his back is turned…
There are LEO in America that aren’t going to put cuffs on you.
There have been father’s that beat their children’s attacker to death with their fists, meaning they could have stopped once the threat was incapacitated, and didn’t, that were not charged.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. [/quote]
There are places in America, where irrelevant of what the letter of the law says, aren’t going to charge you in this instance.
I live in MA, so I’d be going to prison for a long, long time. However other states are going to be a bit more understanding, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]
I live in MD so I’d be going to jail…[/quote]
I can’t think of any US jurisdiction where you wouldn’t. States may vary on things like duty to retreat, but the common denominator I’ve observed is that lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat to yourself or those under the mantle of your protection.
Not a past threat, not a future anticipated threat. The threat has to be present right there, right then, which a fleeing person is generally not.
Perhaps Beans can show me cases where this hasn’t been the case?
[/quote]
I’m saying you walk into you home and catch someone raping your wife… As you draw he gets up to leave and by the time you fire his back is turned…
There are LEO in America that aren’t going to put cuffs on you.
There have been father’s that beat their children’s attacker to death with their fists, meaning they could have stopped once the threat was incapacitated, and didn’t, that were not charged.[/quote]
In states that have a castle doctrine, you can usually shoot someone in the back if they are in your home. Being present inside your house is considered to put you in reasonable fear for your life.
Duty to retreat (stand your ground) only refers to the person using the force. It tells if you legally have the obligation to run away to avoid violence or not. It doesn’t deal with if you can shoot someone running away.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In states that have a castle doctrine, you can usually shoot someone in the back if they are in your home. Being present inside your house is considered to put you in reasonable fear for your life.
[/quote]
This was my understanding as well, but wasn’t sure so I didn’t mention it.
I thought, though could be wrong, that there are states were pretty much as long as it isn’t an obvious execution, or they have all but one leg out the window getting away, you’re good to go in reminding the intruder why home invasions are a bad idea, front or back towards you.
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens.
“In the case of Baltimore Transit Co. v. Faulkner, 179 Md. 598, 20 A.2d 485 (1941), which involved a civil lawsuit for assault and battery, the Court of Appeals of Maryland set forth the general common law principles of the doctrine of self-defense:
The law of self-defense justifies an act done in the reasonable belief of immediate danger. If an injury was done by a defendant in justifiable self-defense, he can neither be punished criminally nor held responsible for damages in a civil action. . . . One who seeks to justify an assault on the ground that he acted in self-defense must show that he used no more force than the exigency reasonably demanded. The belief of a defendant in an action for assault that the plaintiff intended to do him bodily harm cannot support a plea of self-defense unless it was such a belief as a person of average prudence would entertain under similar circumstances. The jury should accordingly be instructed that to justify assault and battery in self-defense the circumstances must be such as would have induced a rea[s]onable man of average prudence to make such an assault in order to protect himself. The question whether the belief of the defendant that he was about to be injured was a reasonable one under all the circumstances is a question for the consideration of the jury.”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens. [/quote]
Even in your home?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens. [/quote]
Even in your home?[/quote]
I threw a quick edit up with a wiki reference to a MD case that address it.
Hard to tell DD
"The duty to retreat also does not apply if one is attacked in one’s own home. “[A] man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker.” Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). The Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
“* * * A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens. [/quote]
Even in your home?[/quote]
I threw a quick edit up with a wiki reference to a MD case that address it. [/quote]
Doesn’t seem to apply in the home.
Furthermore, it is important to note that, in all US jurisdictions that I am aware of, the duty to retreat is only present if it can be done in complete safety to yourself and those under the mantle of your protection.
But this is getting off-track from the incident in SC. Duty to retreat is a non-factor with an LEO in a situation like that.