Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[twa]

you continue to use objectively reasonable as thru a disinterested observers eyes, here it is judged from the shooters eyes, further more if you do not grasp the difference between being the target vs someone near the target we are wasting our time.

 

you do not convict on the older officers view or choice

 

you plainly do not understand the property law either and lean on police policy rather than law

[PokerPacker]

you continue to use objectively reasonable as thru a disinterested observers eyes, here it is judged from the shooters eyes, further more if you do not grasp the difference between being the target vs someone near the target we are wasting our time.

Do you know what the concept of objectivity is? Because you are trying to inject subjectivity into it, which is the antonym of objectivity. You denounce objectivity of "disinterested", which is a synonym for objective, while championing the "objectivity" of one involved.

ob·jec·tive

əbˈjektiv/

adjective

1.

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

"historians try to be objective and impartial"

synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral

[twa]

Do you know what the concept of objectivity is? 

 

do you know from which persons perspective we judge here?

 

 

What about dents and broken windows is irrecoverable, or exposes someone to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury?

 

The justification can't stem from the property damage.  

 

care to explain this case then?

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/17/texas-man-cleared-of-wrongdoing-in-killing-one-car-thief-and-wounding-another/

 

I can give ya more proving your interpretation a fallacy.

[DogofWar1]

you continue to use objectively reasonable as thru a disinterested observers eyes, here it is judged from the shooters eyes, further more if you do not grasp the difference between being the target vs someone near the target we are wasting our time.

 

you do not convict on the older officers view or choice

 

you plainly do not understand the property law either and lean on police policy rather than law

 

It's through both officer's eyes, and it's not their subjective view.  It's also not a disinterested view, their subjective view comes into it, but it is NOT the end all be all.  If so, that notion would justify a mentally disturbed officer shooting someone who is definitively not a threat if the officer is scared enough to shoot.  That's not how the standard works.

 

You continue to not grasp the concept that both officers must make the threat evaluation with regards to whether he has a deadly weapon or not.

 

And no, I'm not leaning on policy, I'm leaning on the penal code.  I quoted the freaking penal code, and posted the link to it above!  You're the one leaning on...well, nothing.  You keep saying you can shoot someone to protect property; meanwhile, I post the bloody law on it, and you just dismiss it.

 

Your views are absolutely ridiculous.  We're wasting our time on you, and you're wasting your time being crazy.

[twa]

do you know from which persons perspective we judge here?

 

care to explain this case then?

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/17/texas-man-cleared-of-wrongdoing-in-killing-one-car-thief-and-wounding-another/

 

I can give ya more proving your interpretation a fallacy.

 

crazy beats deluded

[DogofWar1]

do you know from which persons perspective we judge here?

 

care to explain this case then?

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/17/texas-man-cleared-of-wrongdoing-in-killing-one-car-thief-and-wounding-another/

 

I can give ya more proving your interpretation a fallacy.

 

Castle Doctrine.

 

No Castle Doctrine in a car showroom.

[twa]

Castle Doctrine.

 

No Castle Doctrine in a car showroom.

 

castle doctrine in another persons driveway?

 

it is a protection of property not castle matter

 

add

 familiar with the joe horn shooting?

Edited August 15, 2015 by twa

[PokerPacker]

do you know from which persons perspective we judge here?

You are clearly not getting the whole "objectivity" thing.

[DogofWar1]

castle doctrine in another persons driveway?

 

it is a protection of property not castle matter

 

They were breaking into his Toyota 4Runner, and they talk in the article about the extension of it to cars or long driveways.  If the guy is a neighbor and his car is parked there, there's likely some sort of licensee/easement situation going on, which might extend the castle doctrine.  Even without that, protection of property in that case falls neatly into Subchapter D, Section 9.42(3)(b ), as he had a fear of a weapon, and could not recover the property without fear of said anticipated weapon.

 

However, the fear of a weapon in that case is much more reasonable than in the Christian Taylor case.

 

He confronted them and said he thought they had a gun.  Now, here we have ONE point of view, not two, and multiple criminals, not one.  If we were to use the standard of objectively reasonable, the subjective weight of the one man's view weighs more than each individual subjective view when there are two points of view.  And of course multiple assailants drastically changes the calculus.

Edited August 15, 2015 by DogofWar1

[twa]

so you continue to try to use the other cops reaction as justification for charges rather than the law.

 

Was this guy uninsured or have ya dropped that loser already?

 

Why do you think fear of weapon was higher?

[DogofWar1]

so you continue to try to use the other cops reaction as justification for charges rather than the law.

 

Was this guy uninsured or have ya dropped that loser already?

 

Why do you think fear of weapon was higher?

 

I'm not trying to include it, it naturally ought to be included.  You keep trying to  exclude his view, because if we accept that the more experienced officer's view counts, then your position goes up in smoke.  Nevermind that he was in the same room, looking at the same suspect, making the same evaluation.  You're acting like an officer can only make an evaluation when the suspect's attention turns to them, which is clearly not the case.

 

The guy may have been insured, but you're looking at it from Subchapter D, Section 9.42(3)(a), that is, recoverable vs. irrecoverable.  There are two justifications under Section 9.42(3), (a) and (b ), the second of which was present in the 4Runner case and neither of which was present in the Christian Taylor case.  If you cannot recover the property without putting oneself in deadly harm (and meet all other requirements) you may use deadly force (3)(b ).

 

The insurance point is that neither likely is justified under Subchapter D, Section 9.42(3)(a).  Doesn't mean they couldn't be justified under Section 9.42(3)(b ).  But that requires objectively reasonable concerns about fear of life.

 

It's not about "fear" of a weapon, it's about the objective reasonableness of the view that a deadly weapon was present.  A crazy person who thinks everyone is a lizard person with lasers isn't justified in shooting a bunch of bystanders.  That fear is not objectively reasonable.

 

Objective reasonableness mixes the subjective views present with the objective data present.

 

It was more objectively reasonable in the 4Runner case because you have one person's view that there is a weapon, mixed with multiple assailants.  In the Taylor case, you have two subjective evaluations to look at and mix with objective data, and only one assailant.

Edited August 15, 2015 by DogofWar1

[twa]

The other officers view will be included but is not controlling....nor from the same perspective

 

Why do you think the second officer fired despite knowing/thinking the 1st had?

 What was the need from this older/wiser more experienced fellow to hit him with a taser? .....seems excessive for someone that was no threat by your assertion.

 

no weapon needed to be there under the conditions present, simply the reasonable view it could, the suspect acted as a threat armed or unarmed.

 

ya are still wrong on the property law as well.

[DogofWar1]

It doesnt necessarily follow that the shooting perspective is the "controlling" one. We've got two fairly equal perspectives, and even if we give the rookie's some extra weight because of the immediate look (and that ignores that a deadly threat to one is a deadly threat to the other), we have to give the experienced officer weight for his experience too.

Use of multiple tasers at once is pretty normal. He used a level of force lower than deadly on the use-of-force continuum.

And I've never said he was no threat. Not being a deadly threat does not equal not a threat. Taser would have been fine. But there are different levels of threat. You don't go straight from "no threat" to "deadly threat" without something extra.

And I've explained the property law pretty in depth, so instead of rehashing already made points, I'll just borrow a page from your book: you're wrong on property law buddy.

[twa]

other cases show I'm right , but I agree to disagree 

 

a suspect under such circumstances advancing in that manner and that close is reasonably a threat worth shooting, especially if you think you are alone as asserted.

 

the one closest and targeted would have the best perspective ,no?

 

it would be interesting to hear if Wiggins announced his presence or made commands, or simply arrived in time for the shooting

 

it will also be interesting to hear how long between the 1st shot(and how far he advanced) before the next three

 

7-10 ft away is not far, especially after the officer backed up

[Kosher Ham]

No video of this incident yet ?

 

Car dealership...Get out of here.

 

You guys need to take a rest from this thread for at least 2 days. Step back, evaluate...wait that's what the cop should have done.

[twa]

video of outside only, or at least that is all released or acknowledged, no body or dash cams

video of outside only, or at least that is all released or acknowledged, no body or dash cams

[sacase]

This gets a little old. How about we don't break in to places to steal or destroy stuff and you don't get shot. Pretty simple to me. But of course, let's not blame the criminal. 

[PokerPacker]

This gets a little old. How about we don't break in to places to steal or destroy stuff and you don't get shot. Pretty simple to me. But of course, let's not blame the criminal.

At what point do you draw the line of lethal force? Can cops start shooting people for being drunk and urinating in public? Maybe the criminal shouldn't have peed in that alley and wouldn't have been shot.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Got pulled over by VA State Trooper a few days ago. Was allegedly going 86 in my suped up Prius. He did me a solid just giving me a speeding instead of reckless. A reckless would seriously have ****ed me.

Anyway point of this post. As known I probably have more experience with police and other authoritative agencies then anyone on this board. For the first time in my life--and it was the first words out of his mouth--I heard "Before we start, just want to inform you this interaction is being recorded by both audio and video".

That's the only solutions to this ****. And the cops shouldn't have a single ****ing problem with it

[twa]

At what point do you draw the line of lethal force? Can cops start shooting people for being drunk and urinating in public? Maybe the criminal shouldn't have peed in that alley and wouldn't have been shot.

 

somewhere below breaking and entering and that .

 

or between , i'm flexible

Edited August 17, 2015 by twa

[DogofWar1]

TWA, I think you're still misinterpreting the case law you're using to support your position, and there are some cases that come out the other way (and it's solely a Texas thing anyway), but since we're not getting anywhere with each other, for the sake of brevity, agree to disagree.

 

 

No video of this incident yet ?

Car dealership...Get out of here.

You guys need to take a rest from this thread for at least 2 days. Step back, evaluate...wait that's what the cop should have done.

 

Definitely a little strange.  The video I saw had an inside view of the kid for a bit before the police arrived, then went outside for the rest.  Maybe the action moved away from the cameras, but I haven't heard much on the issue.  I would think if they had one inside camera they'd have a few more in there too and some potential coverage of the action.  Maybe they consulted with the police or prosecutors and only things that might not be used in a criminal/civil case were released?  I imagine a direct video would taint a jury pool before the trial if it's pretty clear one way or another how the conduct was.

 

That would be pretty interesting actually, the concept that social media coverage of high profile cases creates effectively mass tainting of jury pools.  We used to have it with tv a little, but nothing like now.

 

 

This gets a little old. How about we don't break in to places to steal or destroy stuff and you don't get shot. Pretty simple to me. But of course, let's not blame the criminal. 

 

Well, in almost every state but Texas, outside of the (usually somewhat limited) Castle Doctrine, you can't use lethal force to protect property.  Texas stands out because of their 2007 law (and subsequent flexible case law on that law) that expanded Castle Doctrine which has significantly boosted the number of justified homicides in the state.  The conventional wisdom of the law in most places in the US that aren't Texas is that life must be in danger to use lethal force, under the theory that "life of innocents >> life of criminal >> property."

 

Then again, this is the state that brought us the Cowboys.

 

_______________

 

We all talked earlier about the militarization of police; it looks like some changes are coming.  http://www.stripes.com/how-the-pentagon-s-distribution-of-military-gear-to-police-is-about-to-tighten-again-1.363122

 

We'll have to see what those changes are exactly, but it looks good from 30,000 feet.  Requiring training and local government approval for specialized weaponry definitely should improve situations nationwide.

Edited August 17, 2015 by DogofWar1

[s0crates]

We all talked earlier about the militarization of police; it looks like some changes are coming. http://www.stripes.com/how-the-pentagon-s-distribution-of-military-gear-to-police-is-about-to-tighten-again-1.363122

We'll have to see what those changes are exactly, but it looks good from 30,000 feet. Requiring training and local government approval for specialized weaponry definitely should improve situations nationwide.

Well that's something at least, better training, community oversight, and requiring justification for the equipment should all help some.

Although there is nothing in that article about the "use it or lose it" rule, which is a particularly pernicious aspect of the program. ("Here's a tank, now you must use it in the first year or we're taking it back, so find a reason.")

Edited August 17, 2015 by s0crates

[DogofWar1]

Although there is nothing in that article about the "use it or lose it" rule, which is a particularly pernicious aspect of the program. ("Here's a tank, now you must use it in the first year or we're taking it back, so find a reason.")

 

Yeah, that's got to come under review as well, though naturally it mirrors the way many federal agencies are funded, so it seems like an ingrained problem.  Hopefully they peel back some of the bigger hardware (like tanks, haha) so that they'll only have stuff they would have naturally used within a year anyway.

[Destino]

Well, in almost every state but Texas, outside of the (usually somewhat limited) Castle Doctrine, you can't use lethal force to protect property.  Texas stands out because of their 2007 law (and subsequent flexible case law on that law) that expanded Castle Doctrine which has significantly boosted the number of justified homicides in the state.  The conventional wisdom of the law in most places in the US that aren't Texas is that life must be in danger to use lethal force, under the theory that "life of innocents >> life of criminal >> property."

 

Then again, this is the state that brought us the Cowboys.

 

That thinking, that you can't use potentially lethal force to defend property, sounds a lot nicer to those of us that live a good life economically and are fully insured.  It sounds less righteous to those that have struggled long and hard to scrape together their meager possessions, depend on them, and have no insurance that will come in to replace them.  We believe that we are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness but how can that be true if a person struggling to keep their family fed and housed has to allow his tools to be stolen and lose their ability to work?  How can that be true if a single parent struggling to keep it all together has to watch a thief steal their car when they have an unsympathetic boss at a **** job and kids that need to get to daycare?  Too bad for them? 

 

I don't say any of this because I want people shot dead over cars at a dealership but because if we are to discuss a situation, perspectives that challenge our own deserve consideration.

[Major Harris]

http://wgntv.com/2015/08/16/pistol-whipped-detective-says-he-didnt-shoot-attacker-because-of-headlines/

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — An Alabama, police detective, who was pistol-whipped unconscious, says he didn’t fight back because he didn’t want to be in the media.