quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So do you, truth be told.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

but you don't offer any other answer for why he thought he didn't have to follow the rules.

I have but you either do not pay attention or you deliberately ignore what I said. He did indeed follow the rules. The rules here are the same as in any other police involved shooting. If you fear for your life you may fire your weapon. Look at the circumstances. There was a loud noise just as a figure appeared at the driver's window. He was trained to react to a threatening situation and he did. Quite properly and tragically.

Which rules are you talking about? Specifics, please.

So you think this shooting was justified?

Answer my question, please.

I did, several times.
Answer mine do you actually think that this shooting is justified? He would have to have reasonable fear of harm, it didn't exist.
If you think he was reasonably defending himself you must think he was justified, nobody, including the chief of police agrees with you.
Of course you know more than the rest of the world put together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

but you don't offer any other answer for why he thought he didn't have to follow the rules.

I have but you either do not pay attention or you deliberately ignore what I said. He did indeed follow the rules. The rules here are the same as in any other police involved shooting. If you fear for your life you may fire your weapon. Look at the circumstances. There was a loud noise just as a figure appeared at the driver's window. He was trained to react to a threatening situation and he did. Quite properly and tragically.

Which rules are you talking about? Specifics, please.

So you think this shooting was justified?

Answer my question, please.

I did, several times.
Answer mine do you actually think that this shooting is justified? He would have to have reasonable fear of harm, it didn't exist.
If you think he was reasonably defending himself you must think he was justified, nobody, including the chief of police agrees with you.
Of course you know more than the rest of the world put together.

I think a lower court might find that he feared for his life. The Supreme Court might uphold the lower courts since it has ruled the jury must take the cop's perspective.

So, let's get this straight, you don't argue he broke any rules after all. Changed your mind on that. Now you are saying you know better than the cop if he feared for his life. You are a wonderkind!!! Interesting that in your past posts white cops legitimately feared for their lives but you are certain this cop of color did not fear for his life.

Got it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Long observation of his posts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I think he shoots from the hip a lot, and enters these incidents with an unrecognized bias.
We know ahead of time what he'll conclude, whatever the evidence.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I think he shoots from the hip a lot, and enters these incidents with an unrecognized bias.

We know ahead of time what he'll conclude, whatever the evidence.

quote:

I never said he didn't break any rules, I said I told you repeatedly which ones he ignored. If you couldn't understand what they were the first 5 or 6 times why would you finally get it now.

quote:

You ignore the part about a reasonable expectation of a threat from the person they shot, that does not exist.

quote:

How about admitting that hands up don't shot is based upon a lie, I asked you that long ago and you have refused to answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I never said he didn't break any rules, I said I told you repeatedly which ones he ignored. If you couldn't understand what they were the first 5 or 6 times why would you finally get it now.

You are so full of shit.

quote:

You ignore the part about a reasonable expectation of a threat from the person they shot, that does not exist.

According to the Supreme Court your perspective is useless.

quote:

How about admitting that hands up don't shot is based upon a lie, I asked you that long ago and you have refused to answer.

Straw man. It has nothing to do with this incident.

quote:

You have refused to answer about hands up for a long time, so I guess you know it is a lie and just don't want to face it.
The court has said no such thing. they sat a reasonable fear is a legitimate defense, they don't say you can pick a victim at random which
is what he.
He followed all the rules?t
When did he turn on his body cam? that was required. When did he try to defuse the confrontation? That has been a rule for over a year.
Your argument has no contact with reality.
If you are goin to try and justify this at least come up with something that makes sense.
Looks like you only think it is ok because the victim is white.
According to you a cop has no justification if a mentally ill person attacks them with a baseball bat
but he does it a white person is walking toward the car in pajamas and talking to your partner..

quote:

The court has said no such thing. they sat a reasonable fear is a legitimate defense, they don't say you can pick a victim at random which
is what he.

quote:

If you are goin to try and justify this at least come up with something that makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You have refused to answer about hands up for a long time, so I guess you know it is a lie and just don't want to face it.
The court has said no such thing. they sat a reasonable fear is a legitimate defense, they don't say you can pick a victim at random which
is what he.
He followed all the rules?t
When did he turn on his body cam? that was required. When did he try to defuse the confrontation? That has been a rule for over a year.
Your argument has no contact with reality.
If you are goin to try and justify this at least come up with something that makes sense.
Looks like you only think it is ok because the victim is white.
According to you a cop has no justification if a mentally ill person attacks them with a baseball bat
but he does it a white person is walking toward the car in pajamas and talking to your partner..

I have never given any thought to "Hands up, don't shoot." And if I ever used the phrase on these boards it was rare. I don't know why you keep harping on it since it is not a phrase common to my lexicon.

quote:

The court has said no such thing. they sat a reasonable fear is a legitimate defense, they don't say you can pick a victim at random which
is what he.

You should be embarrassed by your ignorance. A simple google would show you how wrong you are.

The principle that force should be evaluated from an officer’s perspective received the Supreme Court’s endorsement in a 1989 decision holding that such encounters ought to be “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Since then, a series of subsequent Supreme Court rulings have expanded officers’ legal protections.

Many officers say this is appropriate given the realities of the job: They are issued guns and obligated to confront danger and unlawful behavior. Forced to make split-second decisions during sometimes chaotic encounters, the police deserve significant protections under the law, especially when things do not go as planned, supporters of the legal standard say.

quote:

If you are goin to try and justify this at least come up with something that makes sense.

I am not trying to justify this. I merely told you how I think the courts would rule. The quote I gave you from the New York Times article bears me out. Google it. If you can. I am sorry for you if you don't have the brains to do research. You southern swamp people are all alike. Idiots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You have refused to answer about hands up for a long time, so I guess you know it is a lie and just don't want to face it.
The court has said no such thing. they sat a reasonable fear is a legitimate defense, they don't say you can pick a victim at random which
is what he.
He followed all the rules?t
When did he turn on his body cam? that was required. When did he try to defuse the confrontation? That has been a rule for over a year.
Your argument has no contact with reality.
If you are goin to try and justify this at least come up with something that makes sense.
Looks like you only think it is ok because the victim is white.
According to you a cop has no justification if a mentally ill person attacks them with a baseball bat
but he does it a white person is walking toward the car in pajamas and talking to your partner..

I have never given any thought to "Hands up, don't shoot." And if I ever used the phrase on these boards it was rare. I don't know why you keep harping on it since it is not a phrase common to my lexicon.

quote:

The court has said no such thing. they sat a reasonable fear is a legitimate defense, they don't say you can pick a victim at random which
is what he.

You should be embarrassed by your ignorance. A simple google would show you how wrong you are.

The principle that force should be evaluated from an officer’s perspective received the Supreme Court’s endorsement in a 1989 decision holding that such encounters ought to be “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Since then, a series of subsequent Supreme Court rulings have expanded officers’ legal protections.

Many officers say this is appropriate given the realities of the job: They are issued guns and obligated to confront danger and unlawful behavior. Forced to make split-second decisions during sometimes chaotic encounters, the police deserve significant protections under the law, especially when things do not go as planned, supporters of the legal standard say.

quote:

If you are goin to try and justify this at least come up with something that makes sense.

I am not trying to justify this. I merely told you how I think the courts would rule. The quote I gave you from the New York Times article bears me out. Google it. If you can. I am sorry for you if you don't have the brains to do research. You southern swamp people are all alike. Idiots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Global warming will take care of Florida soon enough.

That aside I am up to someone slapped the squad car? Wait it was the back of the car wasnt it.