tvc184

The guy had brake lights out. There is no excuse needed. It is called probable cause. Officers need no description when a crime is witnessed.

A robbery happens a day or two earlier. Officers are given a general description. Part of that description includes a female accomplice and color of vehicle. Officer spots a similar colored vehicle and a man that generally fits the description and he has a woman with him. It is called a hunch. It gives no lawful authority for a detention. BUT.... brake lights out give not only reasonable suspicion but probable cause. even if the officer is using the traffic violation to check out something else. (Whren v. US- US Supreme Court) Since the officer doesn’t know if this is really the suspect and may be innocent citizen, he doesn’t approach with gun drawn in felony traffic stop mode. He strikes up almost casual coversation with driver and in all likelihood just wants name. Why? Photo lineup. Several photos are shown to clerk in the robbery with driver being one of them. It is routine police work. Driver says I have a firearm on me. Officer says don’t pull it out and if you listen closely, it sounds like the driver says I have to pull it out. Officer’s statements were, “Don’t reach it though.. don’t pull it out! Don’t pull it out!!” Officers flinches to the rear as he draws and opens fire. We will never know why the driver reached for the gun and sounds like he said I have to pull it out.

The words “don’t move”give no legal self defenses options. The words “don’t move” followed by a person reaching, do.

I watched the video. I can see where the jury found the officer not guilty.

The ruling had nothing to do with the Redskins. You've got to get past the fake news headlines

I have never thought of a Bill of Rights case as being petty but to each his own.

First Amendment cases are petty issues?

I think all of the computer models are a joke. They are a brief snapshot in time for conditions that might exist at that moment only. Although some are crazier than others, I have seen no computer model that consistently shows wherr a storm will land at more than maybe 48 hours out and then only maybe.

I am saying that if you have two John Smiths living in Beaumont and one is black and the other is white, it might be easy to see which is which on the background if there is an issue. Almost everything in law-enforcement is broken up by race and sex. If you were trying to find an ulterior motive for the question, I don't believe it's there. We say black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male and female so much that is hard to listen to cops off duty talking about the any situation without everybody that they are talking about being identified by race or sex when the reality you have nothing to do with a story.

Plessy was a case about civil rights from the 1800s. Yes that was overtired. So was Dred Scott from before the Civil War. Then you mentioned Gates which set a new precedent alright but strangely since what we are talking about, gave the police more authority. Yes a new precedent is always possible. In this case I think it will be unlikely for a long time in the future. In any case we are stuck with the laws at hand, not what might happen 50 years from now. Why do I think that? Look at some fairly recent cases (not like your 1800's example). . In Plumhoff v. Ricksrd The police shot into a car that was fleeing. They not only killed the driver but they completely innocent passenger. In a lawsuit the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a unanimous verdict that the police officers did not display on a lawful use of force. That was in 2014. From just a few weeks ago in 2017, we have another unanimous verdict frim the Supreme Court. In Los Angeles v. Mendez The police went into a backyard on an unverified tip looking for a wanted person. They unlawfully entered a shack and confronted a man and woman who were living there. The man was not the suspect. The man had a BB gun in his hand and the police shot both the man and woman. Even though the officers created the situation and even though they had made illegal entry, the unanimous Courts said the use of force was justified. In 2015 Texas DPS trooper Mullenix shot and killed a man during a high-speed chase. He got on top of an overpass and fired into the oncoming car that was not threatening him after being given an order by his supervisor not to do so. The trooper said I'm going to disable the car and instead shot and killed the driver. In an 8-1 ruling the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the trooper. Mullenix v. Luna. I listed three cases from the last three years. In rulings on officer use of force in those cases the combine verdicts were all in favor of the officers in a combined vote of 25-1. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the Supreme Court said that officers can get the driver out of a vehicle without cause. In Maryland v. Wilson they ruled the same thing for the passengers in a vehicle even though the passengers were not lawfully stopped and just happened to be there. I have found that the Supreme Court of the United States can be fairly restrictive with allowing officers to search, particularly in homes, without having probable cause and a warrant. They have had some fairly recent rulings that have changed the reasoning and lawfullness of a search without a warrant. They have become more restrictive to what officers are allowed to do. I agree with those decisions. When it comes to self-defense however I have seen no indication that the Supreme Court will become more restrictive and you can probably see from the rulings that I just listed that is quite the opposite. When officers are on scene of an incident they have to be completely in control even if the incident is of their own making.

Out of all this talk about the shooting ..... How about those two police officers that from news reports, ran across open ground to engage the suspect. They likely had only handguns against a rifle. In combat that is a terrible mismatch that should not be undertaken however these two dedicated police officers did just that. They could have sought cover behind the dugout, called for help and be the last line of defense for the people around them. To do so would not be cowardly. Those officers did not take that option. They went into the fight completely out gunned. What likely would have been double digit fatalities, including those police officers, turned out to only have one death… the suspect. With overwhelming odds against them they ran toward the fight. That was an unbelievable display of courage and call to duty. Thank you my brother and sister.

He was a Democrat who was shot by a socialist. A little more than 50 years after his death, coincidentally now about 75% of Democrats are socialists. Strange how that worked out.

The ethnicity question is on there for identification purposes.

.

... and there is no requirement that the person had to be armed. There is no requirement that the person intended to kill an officer or anyone else. There only requires a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury, not death.

An officer, just like any other person, can you deadly force when a person in that situation would reasonably believe it is needed. In the case of an officer the Supreme Court of the United States says it it must be viewed from the eyes of an officer and not a civilian.

I have never sided with the officer. I have never said on any forum that he is not guilty or that he was justified. I have no clue. Apparently some people are seeing evidence that I have not seen and I would like to view it. Twice above you said that the video shows no justification. The video shows absolutely nothing. It shows a woman gives her opinion after the incident is over. That is why I am asking anyone for some rationale to draw the conclusion that the video shows anything. Opinion? Sure, everyone is entitled to any thoughts without any justification. This is a discussion forum however and I am curious why (and I am fairly certain that I will never get an answer) anyone thinks the girlfriend's video has anything to do with the events leading up to the officer being guilty of anything. The officer might be completely guilty or he might be completely innocent. The burden is on the state to prove guilt. Has anyone seen any evidence on video that shows the officer is guilty? If not, what would a guilty verdict be based on..... other than bias? So a person can believe that the officer is 100%. Great!!! I was wondering why. I don't think that is asinine.

I could find nothing released to the public that I am aware of that shows the officer did anything wrong at all. What "on the surface" makes you think he is guilty? Hutch? They only evidence that I have seen against the officer is a girlfriend's testimony. Her video however that everyone thinks is so much against the officer, has him under extreme stress having your shot someone and if I remember right saying something like I told him not to move. That is not under cool reflection with time to talk with the lawyer and get your story straight. Watch the video, it is pure emotion. I understand people have an opinion. I'm just curious of what makes people think the officer is guilty other than just being a police officer.

I did. I assumed that if the DA took this to trial and there was actual evidence of wrongdoing by the officer other than his word against a girlfriend.

I am thinking a questionable post but I will pose the same thing to you. What video do you know where it shows the incident before and during the shooting? I did not know they released such a video and would like to see it. It might change my opinion.

What video are you talking about? The only video that I have seen was after-the-fact when his girlfriend broadcast it. Maybe you can point out a video that shows everything you said before the shooting actually took place. If not then it is nothing but speculation. As far as they're being no gun or not seeing a gun, there is never a requirement for a weapon even to be produced in order to lawfully use deadly force.

So when you want to go shooting? I have been a police firearms instructor since 1992 (FBI firearms instructor course), been teaching basic and tactical firearms at the academy for over 20 years, qualified on machine guns, spent 10 years on SWAT, own several firearms and am a Glock factory certified armorer. Other than that, I don't know much about them.

So I assume that with no evidence, you believe just the opposite? You have no idea what the officer saw in this case but you know that he is wrong. A jury looked at the evidence and said that there was not enough evidence to convince them of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is interesting that you accuse a different opinion of to "believe" it with no evidence... while you are doing exactly the same thing.

That sounds great... but from my experience, it is just the opposite. A lot of the people that I know with one gun (including some police officers) have one just because and they aren't really gun people.

While we were going to the Moon, the Russians were secretly sending a space colony to Mars. Let the Americans think they won the space race .........