Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[JimL]

I mean, we haven't really leaned hard into the "condemn the victim argument", but since you're accusing us of doing it anyways, I'd like to point out that he's on parole for (among other things) a conviction of felony child abuse. Let that sink in for a moment.



We all have some sort of implicit bias, JimL. I'll tend to be biased for police, and you'll tend to be biased against police. Such is life. The real question is, how should a third party evaluate our claims? The answer is, by examining the facts and logic used in the argument to verify that it all checks out. And then evaluating who's made the best argument. I've quoted sources, referenced case law, and given detailed explanations based on advanced training I have in the forensic investigations of shooting incidents, criminal law, and other relevant topics.

You, however, haven't made coherent arguments against my claims and have basically just repeated yourself over and over. So....who should everyone in this thread be inclined to believe?



You conveniently left out trying to shoot the officer with a tazer while running. That's either sloppy work or an outright lie. Get your act together.

Give me a good reason why shooting him dead was a better option than letting him flee?

[Cow Poke]

I mean, we haven't really leaned hard into the "condemn the victim argument", but since you're accusing us of doing it anyways, I'd like to point out that he's on parole for (among other things) a conviction of felony child abuse. Let that sink in for a moment....

Careful now, brother, JimL is rather infamous for defending NAMBLA and arguing against Age of Consent Laws.

[Mountain Man]

I remember an episode of Adam 12 many years ago, where Lt Reicher (sp) was with some officers chasing a bad guy, and one of the rookies fired a warning shot in the air.

Lt Reicher got all flustered and yelled something like "what's the matter with you, why are you shooting at GOD, don't they tell you at the Academy that HE'S on OUR side!"

Not to mention that shooting into the air is a bad idea in general, because what goes up must come down, and in the case of a bullet fired from a gun, it comes down at a fatal velocity.

[myth]

Give me a good reason why shooting him dead was a better option than letting him flee?

That's not even a relevant question. The question isn't "what were the best options", the question is "what were the legally permissible options". Your reading comprehension skills aren't really up to par, are they?

But since you asked: having the benefit of hindsight and analyzing this over and over again: no, it wasn't the best option. As I explained, though, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that a different analysis is necessary.

[myth]

OK, at 42:17 it looks like he did kick him in that video.

I agree that his feet are moving forward towards the suspect, yes. However, in the context of a criminal assault, a kick is generally intended to cause harm. Rolfe is leaning forward over the suspect during that motion. It's very difficult to to get any velocity while leaning IN the direction of your kick. In fact, I'd argue that's not really natural instinct and any kicking I've ever seen done involved the kicker leaning back away from the target of their kick to keep their balance. This is why I said I don't see a kick in the video. Perhaps a nudge with his boot, stepping over a leg, or "kicking" a tazer or small object on the ground away (a motion that would not require much force or momentum).

I'm not sure if I'm really explaining this well. Maybe....I dunno, lean over a pillow on the ground and see how hard you can kick it while standing still. I dunno, does that make sense at all?

[JimL]

I mean, we haven't really leaned hard into the "condemn the victim argument", but since you're accusing us of doing it anyways, I'd like to point out that he's on parole for (among other things) a conviction of felony child abuse. Let that sink in for a moment.

I'm sure you would like to point that out, but his past for which he paid the price, has nothing to do with it.

We all have some sort of implicit bias, JimL. I'll tend to be biased for police,

Glad you admit to that.

and you'll tend to be biased against police. Such is life.

No, such is not life. I'm not biased against the police simply because they are police.

The real question is, how should a third party evaluate our claims? The answer is, by examining the facts and logic used in the argument to verify that it all checks out.

Which is all I am doing.

And then evaluating who's made the best argument.

Right, which is a matter of opinion.

I've quoted sources, referenced case law, and given detailed explanations based on advanced training I have in the forensic investigations of shooting incidents, criminal law, and other relevant topics.

Fine, I saw the video and all I need is common sense to tell me that, whether it was legal or not, there was no need to kill that man. He was fleeing. The officer had 2 choices, let him go, or kill him. He chose the unecessary, not to mention the immoral choice.

You, however, haven't made coherent arguments against my claims and have basically just repeated yourself over and over. So....who should everyone in this thread be inclined to believe?

That's your biased perspective. You claim there was a significant threat to the officer which is what is needed in order to legally shoot to kill a fleeing suspect, but that's false in my opinion. All he had to do was to let the guy go. I think your attitude, the callous regard for human life, is the very reason people are upset about the way police officers think and how the system operates.

You conveniently left out trying to shoot the officer with a tazer while running. That's either sloppy work or an outright lie. Get your act together.

Nope. the officer knew it was a tazer, it wasn't a significant threat, though I'm sure that is what will be argued, but all the officer had to do was back off and let him go. The alternative to shoot him dead was unecessary and immoral.

[JimL]

If you'd read Tennessee vs. Garner or knew anything about modern law enforcement, you'd know that warning shots are strictly prohibited. It's an old school thing that is considered reckless and needlessly risky (accidentally inuring or killing someone who is not posing a threat).

Well it's a stupid rule if you ask me, and apparently 11 law enforcement agencies agreed with me when recommending that the use of warning shots be brought back.

[Mountain Man]

Well it's a stupid rule if you ask me, and apparently 11 law enforcement agencies agreed with me when recommending that the use of warning shots be brought back.

The idea of warning shots is stupid. Firing a gun in a random direction as a "warning shot" could very easily end up killing an innocent person.

Fire into something that could adsorb the bullet? Right, you're running after a suspect, adrenaline is pumping, you're not sure if he has a weapon, so let's take our attention away from the suspect while we desperately search for something that can be "safely" shot. I don't think so. Plus, even something relatively soft like a brick wall could cause a bullet to ricochet.

Shooting at the ground? Nope. Ricochet.

And how will the suspect respond? Chances are, he'll just run faster, or he'll turn and shoot back if the has the means.

What about misunderstandings?

Police officer: "I was just firing a warning shot."
Idiots like JimL: "Liar! You tried to murder him and missed!"

Just a few of the reasons why "warning shots" are a stupid idea.

[JimL]

The idea of warning shots is stupid. Firing a gun in a random direction as a "warning shot" could very easily end up killing an innocent person.

Fire into something that could adsorb the bullet? Right, you're running after a suspect, adrenaline is pumping, you're not sure if he has a weapon, so let's take our attention away from the suspect while we desperately search for something that can be "safely" shot. I don't think so. Plus, even something relatively soft like a brick wall could cause a bullet to ricochet.

Shooting at the ground? Nope. Ricochet.

And how will the suspect respond? Chances are, he'll just run faster, or he'll turn and shoot back if the has the means.

What about misunderstandings?

Police officer: "I was just firing a warning shot."
Idiots like JimL: "Liar! You tried to murder him and missed!"

Just a few of the reasons why "warning shots" are a stupid idea.

Yeah, it's so stupid MM that 11 law enforcement agencies disagree with you. And I notice you didn't mention shooting a warning shot in the air, does't quite fit your agenda I guess. But the point remains, the cop had another option, which was to back off and let the guy escape instead of killing him. They had his car, they had his info, they know who he is, he'd end up spending more time in jail for his stupidity, but no, you'd rather he be shot dead. It is your kind of immoral callous attitude for human life that needs to be rooted out of law enforcement, and it is because of that attitude on the part of many police officers, as we are now seeing, that people are protesting.

[Mountain Man]

11 law enforcement agencies disagree with you.

Source?

And I notice you didn't mention shooting a warning shot in the air...

Yeah, I mentioned that in an earlier post...

Not to mention that shooting into the air is a bad idea in general, because what goes up must come down, and in the case of a bullet fired from a gun, it comes down at a fatal velocity.

As for letting the guy escape, first, he had proven himself to be violent so simply letting him go could have put the community at risk, and second, the officer did not have the luxury of reasoning the situation out in the literal split second he had to decide whether or not to defend himself when the violent suspect pointed a gun shaped weapon at him.

[JimL]

Source?


Yeah, I mentioned that in an earlier post...

As for letting the guy escape, first, he had proven himself to be violent so simply letting him go could have put the community at risk, and second, the officer did not have the luxury of reasoning the situation out in the literal split second he had to decide whether or not to defend himself when the violent suspect pointed a gun shaped weapon at him.

[Cow Poke]

Well it's a stupid rule if you ask me, and apparently 11 law enforcement agencies agreed with me when recommending that the use of warning shots be brought back.

So, 11 law enforcement agencies saw you say something, and said, "YEAH, we agree with JimL".

[JimL]

So, 11 law enforcement agencies saw you say something, and said, "YEAH, we agree with JimL".

Nope, I looked it up when told it was illegal. Try not to say STUPID STUFF, CP.

[Cow Poke]

Nope, I looked it up when told it was illegal.

Ah, so YOU agree with THEM!

Try not to say STUPID STUFF, CP.

You make such a darlin' little parrot. Polly wanna cracker?

[Leonhard]

Not to mention that shooting into the air is a bad idea in general, because what goes up must come down, and in the case of a bullet fired from a gun, it comes down at a fatal velocity.

It's rare but there are cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebr...#United_States