Cop shoots unarmed suspect as he runs away!!!

[Nolacopusmc]

Renegade,

I read your ridiculously long and incoherent posts, and I agree....


YOU WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG.

About everything. I do not know what I was thinking. I guess the last 15 years of my career have all been a sham. Thank you for showing me the light. I wish I was capable of seeing through people like you are. You are a truly talented man. Everything I have been taught, taught others, testified to in court, and believed in my heart has been wrong.

You shredded my entire argument and I have no recourse. Thank you for not embarrassing me as much as you could have.

As an olive branch, I would like to offer you a token of my appreciation for showing me the light.






but you have figured it out.

 

[gonepecan]

Renegade's been I-Deputized.

 

[BIGGREEN]

OH, BTW I stand behind the LEO 1000%. He didn't start the fight, bad guy did! Have you ever raised your hand, or better yet struck your parents? Probably not, because you knew what was gonna happen to you! That's the problem these days, the laws are so f'ed up that the bad guy has the upper hand from the get-go and if he does get popped the def att will get him off on a tech. Just saying Cops are Cops and 99% of us know this and respect it, it's the 1% that dont give a S*$T that are the problem. Put on the uniform and Badge, strap on the gun, get in the car, make your first traffic stop and tell me how fast YOUR heart beats wondering if you're gonna make it home tonight! Now do it 1000 times!!

 

[Mjolnir]

This is interesting. VERY interesting. If the tazer is considered a "lethal weapon" then is it justifiable for a normal Joe draw is pistol and punch holes in some other normal Joe for pulling a tazer on him?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

This is interesting. VERY interesting. If the tazer is considered a "lethal weapon" then is it justifiable for a normal Joe draw is pistol and punch holes in some other normal Joe for pulling a tazer on him?

That argument could definitely be made...about a TASER...not so much with a stun gun given stand-off distance.

 

[Bayoupiper]

The supposition here (yes, supposition) is that once tazed, the suspect could then take the officer's weapon and kill him with it.
Officers have been killed with their own weapons after being beat down and subdued by bad guys.

Also, as has been alluded to earlier, we do not know all the facts as of yet.
The story says he was running away.
That too may be a supposition because of where he was shot, but because of the dynamics of a physical altercation, it is impossible for us to know why he was hit in the legs.




.

 

[Speedlace]

A short press conference w/ the sheriff's office.
http://www.theadvertiser.com/sectio...nference/52516008001/52446026001/594208700001

 

[SpeedRacer]

Several people have died from police issue tazers. Legal or not, I definitely view it as a lethal weapon and would defend myself accordingly. I don't think you'd lose that case in court.

 

[Doug.38PR]

That argument could definitely be made...about a TASER...not so much with a stun gun given stand-off distance.

Correct me if I'm wrong: A stun gun is the thing that looks like a TV remote with a electric pop at the top and the tazer is the thing that shoots a projectile at somebody with wires attachd and stuns them from a distance.

Based on that assumption, you're saying if somebody pulls a stun gun and a guy shoots him, he could be in trouble becaue of "stand off distance"

Well, by that same logic, if a guy pulled a knife I couldn't just shoot him if he intended to kill me with it because of stand off distance.

If a guy is coming at you with a knife, even if you hit them once or twice, they could still get to you and kill you when closing that distance. I would think the same would apply with a stun gun

Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Cbro]

It would be hard for the guy with the knife or stungun or taser to hit you if he had his back to you and was running away.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Correct me if I'm wrong: A stun gun is the thing that looks like a TV remote with a electric pop at the top and the tazer is the thing that shoots a projectile at somebody with wires attachd and stuns them from a distance.

Based on that assumption, you're saying if somebody pulls a stun gun and a guy shoots him, he could be in trouble becaue of "stand off distance"

Well, by that same logic, if a guy pulled a knife I couldn't just shoot him if he intended to kill me with it because of stand off distance.

If a guy is coming at you with a knife, even if you hit them once or twice, they could still get to you and kill you when closing that distance. I would think the same would apply with a stun gun

Am I misunderstanding something?

You make a valid point. It will ultimately depend on how the jury interprets your articulation of the alleged threat.

You are correct on your assessment of what a stun gun is, but unlike the movies, it does not necessarily knock you down and/or out like a Taser does. It is strictly pain, not incapacitation.

A knife on the other hand can independently cause death. Public perception (the jury) is that a knife is unquestionably a weapon when used in an attack basically the same as a gun. When you get into "other things" like stun guns, pens, a stick, frying pans, etc. the area for the jury to interpret the threat is greatly widened.

But your argument is sound, I just would not want to be the one making it to a jury.

 

[Cbro]

On the other hand, the guy had just committed a felony by attacking the leo, this may have given the leo the legal right to use deadly force. However I think he was morally wrong for shoot the guy when he posed no more threat. They new who he was and could have arrested him later.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

It would be hard for the guy with the knife or stungun or taser to hit you if he had his back to you and was running away.

After you remove your foot from your mouth, take a look at what a Taser really is.

if you do not believe me, Lay on the ground and I will tase you with my back to you as I run away. The Taser is a projectile weapon while a knife or a stun gun is a contact weapon.

Good try though.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

On the other hand, the guy had just committed a felony by attacking the leo, this may have given the leo the legal right to use deadly force. However I think he was morally wrong for shoot the guy when he posed no more threat. They new who he was and could have arrested him later.

Right after he committs another felony by raping your wife and cutting her throat.

because something tells me if he will attack a cop on a traffic stop, you giving him the benefit of the doubt, and your "morals" will not mean too much to him.

 

[Cbro]

As I understand it the guy was wanted for a misdemeanor. He was not a rapist or a murderer. You can make all the excuses for that leo that you want and will never change my mind the he was wrong for shooting the dude when he was running away, if that is in fact the facts. I assure you I am far from being a leo basher but in my opinion this was wrong.

 

[charliepapa]

he also became a felon right before he also became bullet-wounded.

resisting and taking the cop's taser and using it on him is a felony. the cop shot a felon, not just a guy wanted for a misdemeanor.

 

[charlie12]

Run and die tired.

 

[Cbro]

he also became a felon right before he also became bullet-wounded.

resisting and taking the cop's taser and using it on him is a felony. the cop shot a felon, not just a guy wanted for a misdemeanor.

Point well made.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

As I understand it the guy was wanted for a misdemeanor. He was not a rapist or a murderer. You can make all the excuses for that leo that you want and will never change my mind the he was wrong for shooting the dude when he was running away, if that is in fact the facts. I assure you I am far from being a leo basher but in my opinion this was wrong.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but based off of your posts, they are very poorly informed opinions. Just trying to give you some of the information that you seem to be lacking.

I hope we never have to respond to your home because your "morals" precluded you from protecting yourself. I mean after he rapes your wife and beats your children, as long as he stops and runs away before you are able to shoot, then he is safe right? We can just try to track him down later.


I understand what you think will happen with the whole "they know who he is" but it just doesn't work that way.

SOrry, but you attack the cops and fight, to a certain degree, you get what you pay for. You walk in the woods, you take a chance of being bit by a snake.

But you are definitely entitled to your opinion.

 

[Cbro]

Point to be made. My opinions posted here are not to be misconstrued as a personal attack on anyone. I just love a good argument and when strong opinions are posted I like to jump in with mine. I am not anti leo and appreciate very much the service they and the military give to us and our country. Just wanted to clear that up.