Jump to content

Don't grab a police officers taser after you fall asleep at the drive thru


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Taser for the most part is not lethal, a sidearm is.

This job is difficult, but you must have presence of mind.

He panicked, never had control of the situation.

bgw

For the most part??  He shoots the officers with a taser - he can then grab their weapons.  Far-fetched, maybe ... but grabbing a taser is begging for trouble.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Based on CURRENT news, the encounter was legit, the way it degraded into a fight will have to be sorted out based on cam/bodycam video. If he would have been shot the moment he took the taser and the

Another jealous sailor. It's ok. I know a lot of people who "almost" joined the USMC. Will you bell bottom jean, Gilligan hat wearing motherfuckers ever get used to being just the worlds biggest

And yet he wasn't murdered....   The problem isn't just cops,it's this generation.   No one takes their profession seriously nor do they value life in general. It's always me first

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

I understand but wtf is the police so supposed to do, just let him go home, maybe run over someone’s kid chilling at the Wendy’s parking lot, they tried to calmly arrest him, I just don’t get what the solution is supposed to be.
Just let people be free? Let them drive high and drunk , rob banks , domestic violence etc etc 

HE DID NOT HAVE HIS CAR. IT WAS IN THE COPS POSSESSION. Unless he stole one he was not going to run over anybody. I am not saying the cop had murderous intentions. I am saying he could have exercised better judgement. AMERICA right now is a tinderbox. We are on the verge of the worst riots in your lifetime and since I was a little boy in Jamaica. If this continues, this could end up being a long, hot, very bloody summer. There will be unnecessary loss of life on both sides. We need to deescalate! You precious market will collapse under this. And since you won't short or buy puts you will be screwed! 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bormio said:

For the most part??  He shoots the officers with a taser - he can then grab their weapons.  Far-fetched, maybe ... but grabbing a taser is begging for trouble.  

No argument here... obviously the cop(s) didn't understand the situation(taser vs sidearm) and wasn't physically equipped to restrain the decedent, the two of them struggled and failed to cuff the decedent.

bgw

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockinl said:

Based on CURRENT news, the encounter was legit, the way it degraded into a fight will have to be sorted out based on cam/bodycam video. If he would have been shot the moment he took the taser and the struggle ensued, it would be justified based on the lawful deadly force continuum. 

At the point he was running away from the LEO's, deadly force should not have been used. They had his license. They had his vehicle. Pretty sure they could get a warrant and arrest him later.

You cant shoot someone in the back unless it is to protect your life or someone else's, and you BETTER be able to prove it in court. (Tennessee v. Gardner)

There is, and always has been too much grey area when using deadly force.

Addendum: FYI: No matter how innocent you may be, it is NEVER ok to fight the police and take a weapon. 

While in the foot pursuit..  He turns with something in his hands and points it at the Police officer chasing him.   Case Over...  Justified Deadly Force.

PS.  He also shoots the taser at the officer.  It's clear in the video.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Texasfrog said:

While in the foot pursuit..  He turns with something in his hands and points it at the Police officer chasing him.   Case Over...  Justified Deadly Force.

PS.  He also shoots the taser at the officer.  It's clear in the video.  

One in the same. Taser. It was the taser he fired. 

The deadly force should have taken place before he fled, if it was going to take place. The police officers only defense will be that they felt their lives were threatened, and he will have an uphill battle justifying it, given the fact that the suspect is running as fast as he can directly away from him.

If he would have a pistol in his hand, then the case for imminent threat is there....case over. But the fact he had an already fired taser and missed, case not over.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

If they were trying to execute him, there would have been 30 shots not 3.... it’s easy for you to judge someone until your in their shoes ... wtf you want them to do while their busy avoiding being shot with a taser in the face

You do know the taser is useless after you fire it....right? He fired, he missed. There is a taser that can fire 3 times, but those are very rare.

Ive been in their shoes, and I did not shoot anyone in the back running from me.

  • Thanks 2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockinl said:

You do know the taser is useless after you fire it....right? He fired, he missed. There is a taser that can fire 3 times, but those are very rare.

Ive been in their shoes, and I did not shoot anyone in the back running from me.

Most of tasers out today are dual shot with atleast one backup shot

2F0A2FCA-E88B-4E4C-9A53-28812B564A46.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarterBlue said:

He did not really turn. He pointed the taser behind him. Then he was shot. It's not like he was standing his ground or anything. Like it was said they had his car. He could have been arrested later. Now his kids are orphaned and his wife widowed. I can't support this. 

If I were a juror, I'd want to know what the police are trained to do in situations like these and what the conventions are in the field. I'd also like to know more about the psychology of events like these. I couldn't fault the officer for doing what he was trained to do. And I couldn't hold him fully responsible for the event if he wasn't in full control of his faculties at the time. 

On the one hand, it doesn't appear that the officer's life was at risk. The victim had a taser, not a gun, and the officer had backup. On the other hand, it's not wildly implausible to think that officer believed the victim might've had a gun -- maybe that would be ruled out if the officer had already searched him -- or that his mind wasn't functioning properly at the time because he had just been in a fight with a suspect who had wrestled a taser away from him or his colleague and who had tried to use it on the officers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rockinl said:

You do know the taser is useless after you fire it....right? He fired, he missed. There is a taser that can fire 3 times, but those are very rare.

Ive been in their shoes, and I did not shoot anyone in the back running from me.

Is the training the same everywhere?

Is it plausible that the officer might've thought the the guy had a gun, or would he have already searched him and ruled that out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Is the training the same everywhere?

Is it plausible that the officer might've thought the the guy had a gun, or would he have already searched him and ruled that out?

At this stage, I don't think enough is known to make that determination (at least I don't know enough). We do know that the deceased was in the process of being arrested (or cuffed) when an altercation ensued. I don't know if the officers had searched him. I do know he was administered a breath analyzer test for signs of impairment. I am not sure why the altercation ensued, what may have been said, what the state of mind of the two officers, as well as the deceased was, etc. 

Clearly what occurred here was not the equivalent of what happened with George Floyd. Still, I think calmer heads could have prevailed and the deceased's life may have been spared. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Taser for the most part is not lethal, a sidearm is.

This job is difficult, but you must have presence of mind.

He panicked, never had control of the situation.

bgw

If he panicked, then I don't see how you can say that he executed a man, as you put it in another post.

It would make sense to say that he's not fit for this line of work, but if he really did panic during the scuffle, then he wasn't in full control of his faculties when he shot the man, in which he case he wasn't fully responsible for the event. 

I panicked once in my life. I was about 14 and a large dog came at me and the next thing I knew, I was on top of a car. I didn't really know what happened or how I got there, and I was embarrassed to find myself on top of stranger's car. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

At this stage, I don't think enough is known to make that determination (at least I don't know enough). We do know that the deceased was in the process of being arrested (or cuffed) when an altercation ensued. I don't know if the officers had searched him. I do know he was administered a breath analyzer test for signs of impairment. I am not sure why the altercation ensued, what may have been said, what the state of mind of the two officers, as well as the deceased was, etc. 

Clearly what occurred here was not the equivalent of what happened with George Floyd. Still, I think calmer heads could have prevailed and the deceased's life may have been spared. 

I’m  more worried about the lynching in California where they ruled suicide? That’s a fishy story 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

I’m  more worried about the lynching in California where they ruled suicide? That’s a fishy story 

At this stage we don't know what happened in California. Personally, I think it warrants a full investigation before a final determination on the cause of death is made. But for now, it is a matter of speculation. If he were my family member I would be pursuing whatever means were available to make sure the matter is not just dropped. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only had 2 drinks officer but don't know what they were ..straight grain? That's enough to make someone pass out in a drive thru.  2 beers.. Nope. You are being rightfully detained...don't grab a taser and run...

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

If he panicked, then I don't see how you can say that he executed a man, as you put it in another post.

It would make sense to say that he's not fit for this line of work, but if he really did panic during the scuffle, then he wasn't in full control of his faculties when he shot the man, in which he case he wasn't fully responsible for the event. 

I panicked once in my life. I was about 14 and a large dog came at me and the next thing I knew, I was on top of a car. I didn't really know what happened or how I got there, and I was embarrassed to find myself on top of stranger's car. 

His is responsible due to him supposedly being a trained officer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Texasfrog said:

While in the foot pursuit..  He turns with something in his hands and points it at the Police officer chasing him.   Case Over...  Justified Deadly Force.

PS.  He also shoots the taser at the officer.  It's clear in the video.  

You idiots never amaze me. Don't know the law or what the constitution says.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Belly Bob said:

Is the training the same everywhere?

Is it plausible that the officer might've thought the the guy had a gun, or would he have already searched him and ruled that out?

Training can very state to state. 

In my 12 years as a LEO, if would have shot everyone that I THOUGHT had a gun, Id die in prison.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockinl said:

Training can very state to state. 

In my 12 years as a LEO, if would have shot everyone that I THOUGHT had a gun, Id die in prison.

That's interesting.

I would've thought that the law would protect officers who had reason to believe that a suspect was pointing a gun at them in the heat of the moment, even if it might turn out afterwards that the the suspect wasn't.

If that isn't the law, we should change it. In the middle of the night, when it's hard to see, and the difference between living and dying hangs on a split-second decision, officers shouldn't be required by law to double and triple check to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that a suspect is, in fact, aiming a gun at them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CODBEARD said:

Still does not make it right to         get            shot                 in                       the                                       back.

Regardless of anyone's feelings, it's murder.

bgw

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Still does not make it right to         get            shot                 in                       the                                       back.

Regardless of anyone's feelings, it's murder.

bgw

correct.. they should have shot him when he resisted and reached for the cops weapons... sorry if I have no remorse for anyone that hurts children in any way.. Is what it is.. the silver lining is at least his wife and kids won't hurt for money anymore nor be hurt by him..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CODBEARD said:

correct.. they should have shot him when he resisted and reached for the cops weapons... sorry if I have no remorse for anyone that hurts children in any way.. Is what it is.. the silver lining is at least his wife and kids won't hurt for money anymore nor be hurt by him..

Very true... thought the very same, family will be compensated as they should be.

The narrative that this individual was a piece of crap and deserved what he had coming to him is bullshit... that line of thinking got a lot of people dead and deprived of right to due process.

bgw

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Running away should not be automatically believed to be running from harm in an innocent way. 

You can be running for cover to continue an altercation. 

For example. If someone broke into my house and was upstairs when I noticed them and I grabbed a gun so they took off downstairs. Now if they are running downstairs and I shoot them in their back, they could have been trying to escape out the front door. 

OR they could be moving to another part of the house to regroup and start more terror. 

When dealing with low life pieces of shit it’s best to shoot first and ask questions later. When you are criminal garbage, getting killed by the police is like gang related death. Eventually your lifestyle will catch up to you. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...