Popeman38 Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I don't know. That's not the point. The point is that the police report would probably never tell us if it was unreasonable since a cop was shot in the back and murdered.Again, he had a violent history, one that included pleading guilty to assault on a cop. He had already fled once. What does one have to do to be guilty? He gave up his right to presumed innocence when he pulled over and then took off. The cop could have pulled him out by the hair and made him dance naked in the middle of the road and that is not provoking him to shoot anybody. Did the cop handle the situation 100% correctly? No. Is there any way he could have handled it to not get shot? Probably not.He pulled a gun and shot the cop. End of story. No need to drag a cops name through the mud because he turned his back on the suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 I don't know. That's not the point. The point is that the police report would probably never tell us if it was unreasonable since a cop was shot in the back and murdered. We don't know everything, such as what words were being exchanged, but I guess I feel like I can see the video and come to a pretty good conclusion that it wasn't unreasonable force. And maybe that's because I know a number of people in law enforcement and know what they go through. If I remember correctly, I believe pulling a gun on a suspect can be considered using more force than pepper spray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speardog1 Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 If I remember correctly, I believe pulling a gun on a suspect can be considered using more force than pepper spray. I agree, Did imply that it wasn't? No. Hopefully you that's not what you took from my statements. Again, he had a violent history, one that included pleading guilty to assault on a cop. He had already fled once. What does one have to do to be guilty? He gave up his right to presumed innocence when he pulled over and then took off. The cop could have pulled him out by the hair and made him dance naked in the middle of the road and that is not provoking him to shoot anybody. Did the cop handle the situation 100% correctly? No. Is there any way he could have handled it to not get shot? Probably not.He pulled a gun and shot the cop. End of story. No need to drag a cops name through the mud because he turned his back on the suspect. Really? Did he know he was going to get shot? Why didn't the kid shoot the cop before he got pepper sprayed, or the first traffic stop? If he knew this he probably would have handled the situation differently. How is that? Don't spray him, pull your gun out, tell him to show his hands, shoot him if his hands go out of sight. I think this would have saved both their lives. Also, you're mixing the words "provoke" and "justifiable." You can absolutely provoke someone to shoot you, that depends on what it takes for a person to get angry enough to shoot you, in this case it was pepper spray. But it's never justifiable to shoot an officer. No one is dragging his name through mudd. It's more of a matter of not being subjective based on the result of the situation. I understand the officer got shot in the back and murdered and the kid was obvious idiot thug. It's just that based on what I see and read, these two had a past, this COULD (Note Could, I'm not drawing a conclusion either way) have had a factor in people dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 No one is dragging his name through mudd. It's more of a matter of not being subjective based on the result of the situation. I understand the officer got shot in the back and murdered and the kid was obvious idiot thug. It's just that based on what I see and read, these two had a past, this COULD (Note Could, I'm not drawing a conclusion either way) have had a factor in people dying. This is how I saw it (with only what's available to us thru the media) as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 I agree, Did imply that it wasn't? No. Hopefully you that's not what you took from my statements. No..I think I was referencing part of Chom's statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.