quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83





You didn't understood what I meant, maybe I haven't used the proper words, if someone charges has less controll on his boody than a person that stands if you move in the opposite direction at an almost equal speed you can control the distance and someway fool him as he will expose himself, as this was not a rugby match where is considered no fairplay to pass the ball to avoid a tackle than in that situation I would have kept controlling the boy from his fron but avoiding contact while my other colleagues could just grab him from the sides, it's not cowardice just an alternative way that doesn't involve tazing, it's what a torero does in a corrida or a fencer does in an assoult or what you do in judo, you move back to exploit your opponent, so the half second that hillwilliam extimated will get 2 or 3 seconds where you can also gain control.Than what is the legal system in my country you can react only to actual threats and not presumed so the: "it was night so he may or may not have a knife or gun" concept doesn't work, it works this way can you see a weapon? if yes ok use yours if no then is him a danger for a third party safety having a violent behaviour? yes ok use your weapon, no then suspect safety is police officer concern and has to continue the chase untill he can grab the suspect without risks for him and the suspect or a third party, in this case the threat to safety was just presumed as he was not drawing any weapon and he was not involved in a violent crime and since that moment ran away, and by the way the concept that so called antisocial behaviour indicate a danger for people safety is something i connect much more with DDR and USSR.

I'm 52 years old and a hell of a lot slower than I used to be at 18 and I will absolutely guarantee that with a running start and under 20 feet away, I can stick a screwdriver or knife into your guts in about a half second and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it short of shooting me.

That's what the cop was looking at.

JOIN THE FUCKING REAL WORLD OF PHYSICS AND SCIENCE

ETA 2-3 seconds to traverse 20 feet? Are you on a fucking roller walker?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm 52 years old and a hell of a lot slower than I used to be at 18 and I will absolutely guarantee that with a running start and under 20 feet away, I can stick a screwdriver or knife into your guts in about a half second and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it short of shooting me.

That's what the cop was looking at.

JOIN THE FUCKING REAL WORLD OF PHYSICS AND SCIENCE

ETA 2-3 seconds to traverse 20 feet? Are you on a fucking roller walker?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003



Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that of the two versions told, the cops are the ones with more reason to falsify what they said. .

That is incorrect. By Florida law, the lookouts could be charged with up to murder I as they abetted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003



Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that of the two versions told, the cops are the ones with more reason to falsify what they said. .

That is incorrect. By Florida law, the lookouts could be charged with up to murder I as they abetted.

Maybe. Maybe not. There are a number of specifics that are still unknown. At most, that would make the lookout only equally as likely to lie, but certainly no more likely to. And, unfortunately, there is probably no way to determine who is telling the lie, so of course the guys with the guns and badges will be the ones getting the benefit of the doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASlave2ServeU

funny how the SIU haven't issued a news release since july 29th
issued first one on july 27th, when the incident occurred
then on 29th
none since
but the cop who saved a chocking woman................
well, the media continually talks about it
but not the wonderful cop
HES ON A PAID VACATION
excuse me,
THE COPS ARE NOT GETTING TRAINED PROPERLY
NINE SHOTS ?
THEN TAZERRED ?
GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE
cant take someone down with the first shot ?
shouldn't be using a gun, then
should get better training
should have psychological testing
BEFORE given their guns
not just my opinion
adrienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASlave2ServeU

funny how the SIU haven't issued a news release since july 29th
issued first one on july 27th, when the incident occurred
then on 29th
none since
but the cop who saved a chocking woman................
well, the media continually talks about it
but not the wonderful cop
HES ON A PAID VACATION
excuse me,
THE COPS ARE NOT GETTING TRAINED PROPERLY
NINE SHOTS ?
THEN TAZERRED ?
GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE
cant take someone down with the first shot ?
shouldn't be using a gun, then
should get better training
should have psychological testing
BEFORE given their guns
not just my opinion
adrienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


I practice fencing, sabre to be precise, you start at 2m (7 feet) from your opponent the weapon is 70cm (13") long, and there is no possibility to move on the sides and you don't get touched by the opponent every fucking time in the first second after the start, you can say it's just a fake weapon but the dinamic is the same, just that distances are slower, than if you read what I wrote I told that moving backwars will increase the time not standing still in your point!
By the way to cover 20 feet of distance from standstill in 0.5s you need an acceleration of 48 m/s^2 that's 4.9 times gravity, if you can cover 20 feet in 0.5s your time on 100m will be 8.33s, Usain Bolt covered the first 10m in 1.87 running 100m record so now we know he is the second fastest man on heart as you at 56 are the one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003



Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that of the two versions told, the cops are the ones with more reason to falsify what they said. .

That is incorrect. By Florida law, the lookouts could be charged with up to murder I as they abetted.

Maybe. Maybe not. There are a number of specifics that are still unknown. At most, that would make the lookout only equally as likely to lie, but certainly no more likely to. And, unfortunately, there is probably no way to determine who is telling the lie, so of course the guys with the guns and badges will be the ones getting the benefit of the doubt.

quote:

There is a link in the OP that explains what the thread is about

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I was simply pointing out that the witnesses have more to lose than the cops.
The cops involved could be disciplined.
The witnesses could be looking at a murder charge.
Who has more to lose?

Here's a quote: "The felony murder doctrine, explains Paul H. Robinson, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, punishes as murder all deaths caused in the course of a felony—even if the killing is accidental—and applies murder liability not only to the person causing the death, but to all accomplices in the underlying felony.
“That's a risk that a person who commits a crime with others undertakes; if one of their cohorts gets killed, then they're responsible.”

I won't post the article because it involves juveniles.

Evading arrest is a felony.
Vandalism is a felony if the damage is over a certain fairly small amount.
They were helping him do both, why else have a lookout if you don't intend to evade arrest. This is a well known law down there that has been on the books for decades so they have a lot to lose and they know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
I practice fencing, sabre to be precise, you start at 2m (7 feet) from your opponent the weapon is 70cm (13") long....

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
I practice fencing, sabre to be precise, you start at 2m (7 feet) from your opponent the weapon is 70cm (13") long....

Dunno how you worked that out.
My tape measure shows 70cm is roughly 27.5" - not 13".

That aside, you are practicing fencing in ideal conditions.
A clean, well-lit room.
Everyone wearing the appropriate gear.
A sporting sense of "fair play".

The case we are discussing is completely different.
It was dark.
The perpetrator knows he is breaking the law.
Even to the point that they must try to avoid arrest - they posted a lookout.
The police arrived when he was doing the damage - got caught red-handed.
He gave them a merry runaround because he really didn't want to be caught.
He got cornered/surrounded and only had 2 options -
1) give up peacefully (which he chose not to do);
2) try and rush his only exit in the hopes he could out-dodge the cop blocking his way out.
In the dark, he got a decent spurt of speed before anyone realised and saw what the fuck he was actually trying to do.
The police needed to stop him quickly and effectively and with minimal fuss - hence the tazer.

The outcome was a tragic accident which is still being investigated.


So your analagy and comparison was very flawed and not relevant.


As for who is more likely to lie about what happened??
In my mind, everything else being equal, the taggers (and this death) have a shitload more to lose than the cop doing his duty. The cops have no real sensible reason to lie but the other taggers really need to say it's police brutality in order for them all not to face a murder/manslaughter charge.
Seems pretty straight-forward to me. No contest IMHO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
my bad 70cm are like 28", anyhow I'd like to see more information becuse it's important also how they arrived to that situation, there are two different stories as someone pointd out and the cops tell is not comletely clear to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I was simply pointing out that the witnesses have more to lose than the cops.
The cops involved could be disciplined.
The witnesses could be looking at a murder charge.
Who has more to lose?

Here's a quote: "The felony murder doctrine, explains Paul H. Robinson, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, punishes as murder all deaths caused in the course of a felony—even if the killing is accidental—and applies murder liability not only to the person causing the death, but to all accomplices in the underlying felony.
“That's a risk that a person who commits a crime with others undertakes; if one of their cohorts gets killed, then they're responsible.”

I won't post the article because it involves juveniles.

Evading arrest is a felony.
Vandalism is a felony if the damage is over a certain fairly small amount.
They were helping him do both, why else have a lookout if you don't intend to evade arrest. This is a well known law down there that has been on the books for decades so they have a lot to lose and they know it.

honestly.. the mentality to elevate this to a murder charge is why I have no respect at all for "US justice".. there is absolutely no humanity or sanity in how it works.. its hitting a fly with a sledgehammer when a flyswatter will do the job.. to turn kids into criminals and throw them in jail for decades just cuz they did something minor like this is why you have so many people in jail that really shouldnt be.. Quite frankly, imo, their friend being dead is punishment enough.. It was a fucking accident!.. This country is so fucking sad and messed up.. I know, I know, ya gotta be "tough on crime"..

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
my bad 70cm are like 28", anyhow I'd like to see more information becuse it's important also how they arrived to that situation, there are two different stories as someone pointd out and the cops tell is not comletely clear to me.

I agree - there are always two sides to every story.

We have the police report of the events - as they saw them and what was reported in the media.
We also have a report from one of the taggers that the lad was subdued before being tazed.

Given both of those scenarios, it just doesn't make any sense to tazer someone who is already subdued.
But the fact that he died puts the rest of the gang at serious risk of severe legal repercussions.
I'm not saying that cops don't lie because it has been shown that it does happen at times.
However, my money is on the police record of events even if it's not 100% accurate.
The reason being that I wouldn't trust a criminal in that situation to tell the accurate truth.
Call me cynical if you like; I gave my reasoning in the earlier post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Sometimes, a perp died and the only thing they could get the accomplices on were something like "Accessory to Breaking and entering" which is a slap on the wrist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

The law was passed when there were a LOT of home invasions in the 80's and some ended up fatal.

Sometimes, a perp died and the only thing they could get the accomplices on were something like "Accessory to Breaking and entering" which is a slap on the wrist.

I'm not saying that the lookouts WILL get a murder charge. I'm saying they could.

It's just one more thing for some young wannabe criminal to think about before he goes out with illegal things on his mind.

ETA. The statute was also passed so that "Getaway drivers" could also get more than a slap on the wrist when the crime they were involved in became fatal.