Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

[GSW]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

Pretty much. I could understand if the guy was moving around and grabbing for a weapon but he had two people on him with his hands behind his back. There was no way that there was any kind of threat and if this guy is so jumpy that he felt like he needed to shock someone who was lying on the ground, unarmed, and in no position to hurt anyone then he never should've been an officer in the first place.

jmood.. its useless man I, and many others have already made that exact point on numerous occasions.

some people just refuse to yield at facts, they want all these fictional fantasy scenarios where a man with a knee in his neck both hands behind his back and face in the ground can possibly get comic book/superhero strength and hurt 5 armed police officers.

i cant really believe people are still arguing that it was justifiable for the police officer to pull out any weapon in that situation

[fishepa]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

I think everyone is just saying there are two sides to every story.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

There was no intent there, do you guys really think there was?

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

There was no intent there, do you guys really think there was?

If you pull out a weapon on a completely restrained guy and don't look to see which weapon it was intent could be entirely possible. Intent is more for the jury to decide though.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

I understand how blatantly stupid the officer looks for even reaching for any weapon.

I just don't see him having any reason at all for wanting to kill the guy. There's no reason I can come up with.

I saw it in his face. It'll be an interesting trial.

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

Those questions do not need to be answered. He still killed the dude. None of those questions being answered would be able to get him off IMO. If his taser was in the wrong place it's still his problem because the guy was restrained. You'd have plenty of time to look into your hand and check to see that you had the right weapon. And even if he did use a taser that was excessive and unnecessary

well, actually, you're 100% wrong. Those questions DO need to be answered because that's how our legal system works. This isn't the Salem Witch trials where we just go by one piece of evidence and ignore every other factor. It's 2009.

And actually, the guy was not restrained. Cuffs or not. Believe me, there are millions of times where a suspect appears to be restrained and fights off 10 officers trying to hold him down. I've seen it and i've been involved in it. Police officers aren't trained to slowly make decisions. Heck, i've even seen a mental aided woman break open cuffs before.

Either way, the questions still need to be answered. He's obviously going to be convicted of something, but those questions need to be answered to find out the severity of his punishment. If you think they dont need to be answered just because a guy is dead, then you're being naive. That's not how the legal system works.

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

If you pull out a weapon on a completely restrained guy and don't look to see which weapon it was intent could be entirely possible. Intent is more for the jury to decide though.

that is NOT the legal definition of intent though.

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

I understand how blatantly stupid the officer looks for even reaching for any weapon.

I just don't see him having any reason at all for wanting to kill the guy. There's no reason I can come up with.

I saw it in his face. It'll be an interesting trial.

The thing that makes me want to think that there was intent is that it was the gun that was pulled and not the taser and the fact that he actually fired the gun too. It's just the question of unless you actually intentended on shooting the guy why would you fire a gun. It's just that you have to know which weapon you have before you fired and most cops would know and unless he was actually that stupid to pull and fire a weapon and not know which weapon it was then it just makes you think that there was intent. It's just hard for me to think that there wasn't. So like I said. Intent is in the eye of the juror. You'll have people that think there was non like yourself and others that feel that there could've been like me and both will have valid arguements.

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

well, actually, you're 100% wrong. Those questions DO need to be answered because that's how our legal system works. This isn't the Salem Witch trials where we just go by one piece of evidence and ignore every other factor. It's 2009.

And actually, the guy was not restrained. Cuffs or not. Believe me, there are millions of times where a suspect appears to be restrained and fights off 10 officers trying to hold him down. I've seen it and i've been involved in it. Police officers aren't trained to slowly make decisions. Heck, i've even seen a mental aided woman break open cuffs before.

Either way, the questions still need to be answered. He's obviously going to be convicted of something, but those questions need to be answered to find out the severity of his punishment. If you think they dont need to be answered just because a guy is dead, then you're being naive. That's not how the legal system works.

You can't judge a case based on other cases. The only way you'd be able to even bring up that he wasn't restrained is if the guy didn't fire the gun and Oscar faught his way out. And that obviously didn't happen. And looking to see what weapon you have a slow decision then I have no idea what your talking about. It takes less than a second to see what weapon you have in your hand and trust me, if a guy is restrained you have plenty more time than that.

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

jmood.. its useless man I, and many others have already made that exact point on numerous occasions.

some people just refuse to yield at facts, they want all these fictional fantasy scenarios where a man with a knee in his neck both hands behind his back and face in the ground can possibly get comic book/superhero strength and hurt 5 armed police officers.

i cant really believe people are still arguing that it was justifiable for the police officer to pull out any weapon in that situation

that is so ignorant it's not even funny. Ask any police officer if a restrained person can still get out even if 10 officers are holding the suspect down. I've literally seen it with my own eyes.

No one here is saying that the guy should get off, resume his job, and go back to life. He obviously is screwed either way, but if he was trying to use his taser and accidentally used his gun, then we're talking criminal negligent homicide, not murder. An officer IS legally justified to use a taser even on a fully restrained person.

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

You can't judge a case based on other cases. The only way you'd be able to even bring up that he wasn't restrained is if the guy didn't fire the gun and Oscar faught his way out. And that obviously didn't happen. And looking to see what weapon you have a slow decision then I have no idea what your talking about. It takes less than a second to see what weapon you have in your hand and trust me, if a guy is restrained you have plenty more time than that.

really? Nah, trust me man, it's just as easy for a person to grab out a weapon. Takes just as little time as it took for that officer to shoot. He's not justified to use his service weapon at all. That's not the question. The question is was this murder, or negligent homicide.

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

that is so ignorant it's not even funny. Ask any police officer if a restrained person can still get out even if 10 officers are holding the suspect down. I've literally seen it with my own eyes.

No one here is saying that the guy should get off, resume his job, and go back to life. He obviously is screwed either way, but if he was trying to use his taser and accidentally used his gun, then we're talking criminal negligent homicide, not murder. An officer IS legally justified to use a taser even on a fully restrained person.

For what reason? Last time I checked that was excessive force

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

really? Nah, trust me man, it's just as easy for a person to grab out a weapon. Takes just as little time as it took for that officer to shoot. He's not justified to use his service weapon at all. That's not the question. The question is was this murder, or negligent homicide.

My question is if the guy was not justified to use his weapon then why did he? That right there creates the possibility of intent.

[GSW]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

that is so ignorant it's not even funny. Ask any police officer if a restrained person can still get out even if 10 officers are holding the suspect down. I've literally seen it with my own eyes.

No one here is saying that the guy should get off, resume his job, and go back to life. He obviously is screwed either way, but if he was trying to use his taser and accidentally used his gun, then we're talking criminal negligent homicide, not murder. An officer IS legally justified to use a taser even on a fully restrained person.

im happy for you youre a cop and seen someone get crackhead strong and **** **** up, ive seen it too. but this yougn kid wasnt doing anything therefore why would a weapon need to be drawn.

i never said he was going to get off. nor am i worried about it, and i dont tihnk he kileld the kid on purpose.

all im saying is in that particualr situation it didnt look like any sort of weapon, tazer,baton,stun gun,mace, or anything else needed to be used.

the kid was restrained.

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

For what reason? Last time I checked that was excessive force

show me legally how that's excessive force? There are 5 steps to justifiable force for a police officer.
Verbal, Physical, Non Lethal, Impact, and then lastly deadly physical force.

the taser is non lethal. An officer is allowed to escalate is use of force if there is non compliance. Non compliance means if the guy is verbally told to stop moving and he continues to move, then physical contact is justified. Physical force was then used on the suspect. If he then makes one movement when instructed not to by both verbal and physical force, the officer is allowed to then escalate to the use of the taser. It's at that point where he should have stopped..

if he truly intended to use his taser but instead use his service weapon, it's criminally negligent. Either way it's a felony, just different jail time. Judging by the fact that he stood up, backed away and then fired, it seems more along the lines of the steps to using a taser.

Who knows, more information needs to come out, but just to look at a video and make a full conclusion as to the severity of his punishment is just being naive about this. Heck, if that's the way things are operated in some of the guys minds here, then why even bother with a trial? The trial is to determine the justifiable punishment.


I don't think i've seen anyone say that what happened was justifiable, but to jut say it's murder based on a video and not even listening to any other factors just is not the way the legal system works.