The legal standard for the use of deadly force by law enforcement

[EternalFantasies]

That was pretty funny.

I wish BB actually had wit.

Believe it or not, he does a great deal.


The jury's still out on you though i'm afraid.

(hey - i'm honest)

 

[BBthrives]

Believe it or not, he does a great deal.


The jury's still out on you though i'm afraid.

(hey - i'm honest)

and not comin back

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My post contained more than that.


The gist of what it came down to in these court cases - and to save me from having to read ALL your threads in their totality - is that it boils down to what the officer judged as threatening to his life and/or others.


And since this is where the law stands, no I do not care about it.

The other items in my post describe how poor quality officers are nowadays abundant (due to hiring procedures and training etc - you outta read more ) and are simply abusing this to shoot too many undeserving people.

I've participated quite well, if you take the time to understand what you read, and to try not to be an actual nor a substantive ASS.

That is NOT the gist of it, and if you had bothered to read the totality of my post you would have found that where the law "stands" is whether the officer's judgment is "reasonable" and that that varies from state to state, and in some states neither he nor others need be threatened at all. He is simply authorized to use ANY force if he is attempting to stop the commission of a felony and/or the fleeing of a suspect from the scene -- whether or NOT that suspect was armed.

It is this variance from state to state that results in confusion as to what the law is. The law matters. It just doesn't matter to people like you. And my contempt for people who have such obvious contempt for the law is what readily turns me into your version of a "substantive ass."

 

[Sean]

That is NOT the gist of it, and if you had bothered to read the totality of my post you would have found that where the law "stands" is whether the officer's judgment is "reasonable" and that that varies from state to state, and in some states neither he nor others need be threatened at all. He is simply authorized to use ANY force if he is attempting to stop the commission of a felony and/or the fleeing of a suspect from the scene -- whether or NOT that suspect was armed.

It is this variance from state to state that results in confusion as to what the law is. The law matters. It just doesn't matter to people like you. And my contempt for people who have such obvious contempt for the law is what readily turns me into your version of a "substantive ass."

One almost gets the feeling you are advocating for federal regulation. Goddamn commie!

 

[jaF0]

I've always been of the opinion that an officer who discharges his weapon for any reason should be put on a minimum of one month's unpaid leave.

My rationale: If he or she feels as if his/her life was in mortal danger, he or she should be willing to go without pay for a month since his/her firearm saved his/her life.

I'll go a step farther. They often testify that they were 'afraid and in fear of their life'

I ask, do we want that behind the badge? Do we want people who are afraid? If they make that claim, should they remain on the job?

 

[BBthrives]

That is NOT the gist of it, and if you had bothered to read the totality of my post you would have found that where the law "stands" is whether the officer's judgment is "reasonable" and that that varies from state to state, and in some states neither he nor others need be threatened at all. He is simply authorized to use ANY force if he is attempting to stop the commission of a felony and/or the fleeing of a suspect from the scene -- whether or NOT that suspect was armed.

It is this variance from state to state that results in confusion as to what the law is. The law matters. It just doesn't matter to people like you. And my contempt for people who have such obvious contempt for the law is what readily turns me into your version of a "substantive ass."

https://www.walldevil.com/wallpapers/a67/skeleton-poison.jpg

 

[jaF0]

One almost gets the feeling you are advocating for federal regulation. Goddamn commie!

I have openly advocated Federal standards for training and behavior, especially in use of force. There should be no problem with that since we're dealing with civil rights issues.

 

[jaF0]

I want my Mommy!!!

STFU BB

 

[Liar]

I've read this entrire thread now twice, and I still can't figure out what the purpose of the OP is or what point signore Hogan is trying to make.

What's the thesis, Colonel?

 

[EternalFantasies]

That is NOT the gist of it, and if you had bothered to read the totality of my post you would have found that where the law "stands" is whether the officer's judgment is "reasonable" and that that varies from state to state, and in some states neither he nor others need be threatened at all. He is simply authorized to use ANY force if he is attempting to stop the commission of a felony and/or the fleeing of a suspect from the scene -- whether or NOT that suspect was armed.

Oh good Lord. And he accuses others to lack wit...

CH hehe.. :

Where he is "simply authorized...etc", is clearly even worse, so doesn't qualify for my reply.

where it stops at "his judgement"... reasonable or not, is not the issue.. for only in extremely obvious and almost - if not - videotaped situations do we maybe hope the jury/judge will say "unreasonable"...

HENCE, THE REST OF MY POST identifying for your (insert the type of ass you wish in here) where the real problem is.

Coz otherwise, the law is where it should be. It's people that degraded.

It is this variance from state to state that results in confusion as to what the law is. The law matters. It just doesn't matter to people like you. And my contempt for people who have such obvious contempt for the law is what readily turns me into your version of a "substantive ass."

I can't blame you; please see previous post. (HINT - just in case: BB is in it too)

 

[Sean]

I've read this entrire thread now twice, and I still can't figure out what the purpose of the OP is or what point signore Hogan is trying to make.

What's the thesis, Colonel?

He's a goddamn pinko commie agitator, that's what!

 

[EternalFantasies]

One almost gets the feeling you are advocating for federal regulation. Goddamn commie!

CH: See? There. He got you there.



Now re-read my posts.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I've read this entrire thread now twice, and I still can't figure out what the purpose of the OP is or what point signore Hogan is trying to make.

What's the thesis, Colonel?

Here's his thesis: bite the only hand helping you.

No one said he didn't qualify for half a snowflake material.

 

[jezzilee]

This thread is inspired by the recent “rash” of apparently unwarranted fatal shootings by police officers of victims of color and the popular notion that such shootings are the product of systemic racism within our nation’s law enforcement agencies. Further, there seems to be a belief that that same systemic racism infects grand juries and trial juries who fail to hold police officers criminally accountable for what would appear to be these infamous negligent (or worse) homicides.

As it turns out, there may be a far simpler explanation. In many instances, current legal standards throughout individual states allow it.

Three separate areas of law are germane to this issue: federal Constitutional law, state civil and administrative law, and state criminal law. Each of these bodies of law have widely different standards of liability, proof, and legal consequences for violators.

Let’s take Constitutional law first. The most notable existing Supreme Court case law precedent is that of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and is the easiest to understand:



Let’s pause here for a moment. Most readers of this forum are probably too young to remember the common police officer admonishment “Halt, or I’ll shoot” popularized in many crime film dramas dating back to the time of George Raft and James Gagney (I don’t either. Jack Webb and Harry Morgan are about as far back as I go). The point is, the Tennessee statute was a fairly commonplace legal standard that allowed the use of any and all force by police officers for the mere purpose of affecting an arrest or preventing escape. And, again, the rejection of this standard by the Supreme Court did not occur until 1985 – 16 years after our “advanced species” had already landed on the moon.

In assessing the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute, the Court did so from the perspective of an "unreasonable" Fourth Amendment “seizure.” Rejoining the Court’s opinion:



And then this telling paragraph in conclusion:



Excuse me? “The complaint has been dismissed as to all individual defendants?” Why, you might wonder if the killing was found to be unwarranted by the Court, wasn’t officer Hymon held to be criminally liable? Well, apart from him acting “lawfully” and in good faith under the applicable law at the time, there is a far more substantive reason. The Court’s invalidation of the Tennessee statute was only applicable to the deficiency of an “unreasonable” Fourth Amendment “seizure” endorsement BY that statute. It had no effect or application to the criminal or civil liability of officer Hymon whatsoever.

And here’s the kicker. Tennessee v. Garner has no application to criminal or civil liability under state law today, either. We’ll examine state law sanctions of police power in the next post.

I am from northern wisconsin which I have declared time and time again. When I was in my mid twenties I signed up to become an EMT. I loved it. I was helping people in my very small community and it made me be proud, excited to be there for others.

Then one day a call came into the police department. Graffiti on an apartment upstairs behind the post office. Not a big deal right? Well the person and her daughter in the apartment saw their downstairs neighbor, someone the community knew as a person who had moved in about a year prior, quiet, but nice, never a problem, run down the stairs...

Cops were called, talked to the victim, went downstairs, knocked on the neighbors door, and the cop was shot three times.

We were called out along with every law enforcement agency in the area, I cannot tell you the circus that ensued in a town with a population of less than 1k.

Suffice it to say the perp shot himself in the head soon after he shot the cop but it took almost 10 hours before law enforcement to breach the property.

It is an event that I will NEVER forget. Retrieving the body of the police officer who was just there doing his job (my cousin was the second cop there securing the scene, my father, also an EMT helped pull him back so he could be pronounced) and then having to go in and make sure the perp himself did not need treatment.

I cannot imagine the terror people feel in these situations.

A simple encounter with vandalism can result in death and now days? It is so much more.

I do not begrudge police officers their job. There are good and bad in EVERY job. I have to believe there are more good cops than bad.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I've read this entrire thread now twice, and I still can't figure out what the purpose of the OP is or what point signore Hogan is trying to make.

What's the thesis, Colonel?

That people when viewing dash cam or other video of a police shooting that arguably should not have taken place expect the application of a criminal standard of culpability with respect to that officer's conduct that may not even exist. Their personal sensibilities are so outraged they don't even give a shit as to what their state standard is.

Eternal Fantasies has made that crystal clear.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

One almost gets the feeling you are advocating for federal regulation. Goddamn commie!

Nope, I'm not advocating that at all. Quite the contrary.

What I am advocating is that, if there is a fatal police shooting in your community, don't assume that the legal "reasonableness" standard that governs the officer's actions is what you would assume applies to the standard of self-defense that governs you, or is the same standard which governs officers in other states or is based on the Constitutional standard applied by the Supreme Court.

None of those assumptions may be true.

 

[Liar]

That people when viewing dash cam or other video of a police shooting that arguably should not have taken place expect the application of a criminal standard of culpability with respect to that officer's conduct that may not even exist. Their personal sensibilities are so outraged they don't even give a shit as to what their state standard is.

Eternal Fantasies has made that crystal clear.

Ok, so this opening part in your OP was a bit of a red hertring then:

This thread is inspired by the recent “rash” of apparently unwarranted fatal shootings by police officers of victims of color and the popular notion that such shootings are the product of systemic racism within our nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Because your point seems to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Or are you somehow saying that because laws vary from state to state and that people may have an unreasonable expecataion of criminal standard of culpability, this disproves claims of a systemic racist factor within the nation’s law enforcement agencies?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I believe the issue lies more within the unequal application of the law and really not with the law(s) itself.

 

[richard_daily]

That people when viewing dash cam or other video of a police shooting that arguably should not have taken place expect the application of a criminal standard of culpability with respect to that officer's conduct that may not even exist. Their personal sensibilities are so outraged they don't even give a shit as to what their state standard is.

Eternal Fantasies has made that crystal clear.

The state standard is typically that an officer may kill anyone, at any time, regardless of the situation. It's a lousy standard.

 

[jezzilee]

I guess being as close as I am to this kind of thing I don't understand the oppostion. The people who would not think twice to call 911 but love to call foul.

 

[EternalFantasies]

That people when viewing dash cam or other video of a police shooting that arguably should not have taken place expect the application of a criminal standard of culpability with respect to that officer's conduct that may not even exist. Their personal sensibilities are so outraged they don't even give a shit as to what their state standard is.

Eternal Fantasies has made that crystal clear.

You bet your aging heiny I don't.


You need to take a look at some of these dash cam footage.

The option to shoot is just standard procedure nowadays...

what r u people nuts?

I DO NOT CARE what you freaking leggal standards are.... And you speak of the law as if it's some great oh wowwy thing we succumb to.

WE write the law bud! WE decide.


What's going on with that has been utterly unacceptable, and police officers started acting like thugs.

And, not because they are cops, but because they are part of today's society...

So, i'll repeat: people degenerated. Law is fine. the law was written when people had a conscious, and respect for certain values.

You seem to want to adjust the law to compensate. And that is heading towards slavery (no - im not clarifying, you think about it).

When American society realizes it needs to take it's kids back to church, and re-build the value system in it's societal fabric, then, we may have hope.


Thinking strictly in robotic legal black and white terms is the sure way to degeneration and slavery... . In fact, it's what's ensuring it.

I'll quote you Shakespeare on that one.


There is right & wrong; and there's the law. Morality and legal ethics are almost always mutually exclusive. And as such:

Fuck the standard.

 

[jaF0]

I guess being as close as I am to this kind of thing I don't understand the oppostion.

I've worked with enough deputies and troopers to understand why. I know how they think. I know how they take advantage of others who are not 'blue'. I know how they abuse and threaten others, including FFs and EMTs. We had one threaten to assault an EMT when he didn't think the EMT was doing something the way he wanted them to.

I know another who was arrested for assaulting a female in his cruiser.

I know two who got into a physical fight with each other over a girl.

 

[Rightguide]

This thread is inspired by the recent “rash” of apparently unwarranted fatal shootings by police officers of victims of color and the popular notion that such shootings are the product of systemic racism within our nation’s law enforcement agencies. Further, there seems to be a belief that that same systemic racism infects grand juries and trial juries who fail to hold police officers criminally accountable for what would appear to be these infamous negligent (or worse) homicides.

As it turns out, there may be a far simpler explanation. In many instances, current legal standards throughout individual states allow it.

Three separate areas of law are germane to this issue: federal Constitutional law, state civil and administrative law, and state criminal law. Each of these bodies of law have widely different standards of liability, proof, and legal consequences for violators.

Let’s take Constitutional law first. The most notable existing Supreme Court case law precedent is that of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and is the easiest to understand:



Let’s pause here for a moment. Most readers of this forum are probably too young to remember the common police officer admonishment “Halt, or I’ll shoot” popularized in many crime film dramas dating back to the time of George Raft and James Gagney (I don’t either. Jack Webb and Harry Morgan are about as far back as I go). The point is, the Tennessee statute was a fairly commonplace legal standard that allowed the use of any and all force by police officers for the mere purpose of affecting an arrest or preventing escape. And, again, the rejection of this standard by the Supreme Court did not occur until 1985 – 16 years after our “advanced species” had already landed on the moon.

In assessing the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute, the Court did so from the perspective of an "unreasonable" Fourth Amendment “seizure.” Rejoining the Court’s opinion:



And then this telling paragraph in conclusion:



Excuse me? “The complaint has been dismissed as to all individual defendants?” Why, you might wonder if the killing was found to be unwarranted by the Court, wasn’t officer Hymon held to be criminally liable? Well, apart from him acting “lawfully” and in good faith under the applicable law at the time, there is a far more substantive reason. The Court’s invalidation of the Tennessee statute was only applicable to the deficiency of an “unreasonable” Fourth Amendment “seizure” endorsement BY that statute. It had no effect or application to the criminal or civil liability of officer Hymon whatsoever.

And here’s the kicker. Tennessee v. Garner has no application to criminal or civil liability under state law today, either. We’ll examine state law sanctions of police power in the next post.

Amen Colonel, thanks for bringing some "legal reality" to the board.

 

[daimoniotica]

When a officer is not indicted by a grand jury of her or his peers, when a officer isn't found guilty by a jury of his or her peers, and when a officer's action(s) is deemed fully defensible and that she or he violated no other individual's civil rights, then the problem isn't with the American justice system but with those who will never be satisfied with anything less than their own outright bigotry.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Ok, so this opening part in your OP was a bit of a red hertring then:



Because your point seems to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Or are you somehow saying that because laws vary from state to state and that people may have an unreasonable expecataion of criminal standard of culpability, this disproves claims of a systemic racist factor within the nation’s law enforcement agencies?

Well, it certainly doesn't disprove the element of racism among individual police officers, but it severely undercuts the theory of racism among trial or grand juries if they are acting in
accord with the legal standard of that state -- no matter how archaic that standard may appear to be.

But, yeah, my thesis is about unreasonable expectations of a legal standard with which average citizens are not familiar and therefore find other substitute motivations and explanations.