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

[Brandon13]

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

I agree with you. Those people drive me nuts. I had a buddy who used to smoke literally every waking hour. And he would talk non stop about how immoral it was that weed was illegal, and all these conspiracy theories about it, and other stuff.

There must be some kind of connection with weed and conspiracies.

Well there's no conspiracy now (well, it is easy to grow at home, so I suppose a conspiracy is easy to see), just a lot of ignorance amongst the general public. It's not politically savvy to come out and support marijuana legalization or decriminalization, so the politicians stay away. I don't ever it see it going beyond decriminalization of small amounts, in my lifetime.

But there is a conspiracy-ish reason why it was made illegal in the first place. But that can be looked up.

[RAZRr1275]

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

I agree with you. Those people drive me nuts. I had a buddy who used to smoke literally every waking hour. And he would talk non stop about how immoral it was that weed was illegal, and all these conspiracy theories about it, and other stuff.

There must be some kind of connection with weed and conspiracies.

That is ennoying as heck. I don't have any friends that smoke weed but I've heard stories

[Cebby]

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

just a lot of ignorance amongst the general public.

There really isn't. Most people realize that marijuana isn't bad for you.

[ex carrabba fan]

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

Here's a pretty clear video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vQxBg5Jxp7c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vQxBg5Jxp7c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[RAZRr1275]

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

Here's a pretty clear video:

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/vQxBg5Jxp7c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

Yeah from that view they had him 100% restrained. No reason for that.

[ex carrabba fan]

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

You can pretty clearly see the officer looking to his partner shocked and saying, "oh shi_" after he pulled the trigger. That's what clearly makes it a mistake, which I thought was fairly obvious.

With that said, I still don't know how much punishment he should receive, since

1. I don't believe he needed to tase the victim anyway
2. The victim was not going to evade or escape their containment
3. It was clearly an accident

[RAZRr1275]

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

You can pretty clearly see the officer looking to his partner shocked and saying, "oh shi_" after he pulled the trigger. That's what clearly makes it a mistake, which I thought was fairly obvious.

With that said, I still don't know how much punishment he should receive, since

1. I don't believe he needed to tase the victim anyway
2. The victim was not going to evade or escape their containment
3. It was clearly an accident

1+2 make me skeptical that it was an accident even though I sort of think it was. And even if it was and he was going to tase the guy, assuming he did he should still be charged for some sort of excessive force thing bcause it wasn't necessary

[Double Eights]

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

With that said, I still don't know how much punishment he should receive, since

1. I don't believe he needed to tase the victim anyway
2. The victim was not going to evade or escape their containment
3. It was clearly an accident

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Murder II sounds accurate.

You're right about the "oh shi_" look afterwords, which makes me have "some" sympathy for him. Yet, he physically stood up, pulled out his sidearm, aimed, and fired. That's inexcusable and had anyone other than a cop done that, they would have been arrested on the spot and more than likely charged with Murder II.

[Knight165]

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

Murder II sounds accurate.

You're right about the "oh shi_" look afterwords, which makes me have "some" sympathy for him. Yet, he physically stood up, pulled out his sidearm, aimed, and fired. That's inexcusable and had anyone other than a cop done that, they would have been arrested on the spot and more than likely charged with Murder II.

That is not murder.
Read your own "evidence".
It's manslaughter or negligent homicide.
With ANY...I repeat ANY murder charge there must be intent to kill the person.
NO WAY that guy intended to do that.

I know what you're trying to get at with the "dangerous conduct"....but driving down the street while trying to change the radio is "dangerous conduct"(you are averting your full attention to the road)...but if you hit and kill someone...it's not murder....it's manslaughter.
Why?....the second part of your quote....the WILLFUL disregard for human life.


You need to get a life D8. You are blinded....it's gonna kill ya'

M.K.
Knight165

[Cebby]

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

You can pretty clearly see the officer looking to his partner shocked and saying, "oh shi_" after he pulled the trigger. That's what clearly makes it a mistake, which I thought was fairly obvious.

It could also be a "holy **** I just killed a person" look. If you've ever had a friend, you know the "oh **** I didn't really mean what I just said" look. This guy may have done that but with killing a man.

Either way, this guy is an embarrassment to the world.

He should get voluntary manslaughter and hopefully killed in prison. Either he's a murderer or too stupid to function and his stupidity resulted in an innocent death. People of both camps should be purged or sent into forced labor until death.

[Double Eights]

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

That is not murder.
Read your own "evidence".
It's manslaughter or negligent homicide.
With ANY...I repeat ANY murder charge there must be intent to kill the person.
NO WAY that guy intended to do that.

I know what you're trying to get at with the "dangerous conduct"....but driving down the street while trying to change the radio is "dangerous conduct"(you are averting your full attention to the road)...but if you hit and kill someone...it's not murder....it's manslaughter.
Why?....the second part of your quote....the WILLFUL disregard for human life.


You need to get a life D8. You are blinded....it's gonna kill ya'

M.K.
Knight165

1. Stand up
2. Pull out sidearm
3. Aim
4. Fire

That is intent to cause harm, thus, that is Murder in the Second.

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

The guy was on the ground, there was NO chance of him getting up and causing damage. There was no need to taser him, there was no need to shoot him, there wasn't even a need to bash him with a nightstick.

Voluntary Manslaughter is not going to stand up to the criticisms of any good lawyer.

[baumy300]

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

1. Stand up
2. Pull out sidearm
3. Aim
4. Fire

That is intent to cause harm, thus, that is Murder in the Second.



The guy was on the ground, there was NO chance of him getting up and causing damage. There was no need to taser him, there was no need to shoot him, there wasn't even a need to bash him with a nightstick.

Voluntary Manslaughter is not going to stand up to the criticisms of any good lawyer.

It's quite a shame that the people who best know the law and how to enforce it are too busy smoking pot and browsing Operation Sports

[Double Eights]

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

It's quite a shame that the people who best know the law and how to enforce it are too busy smoking pot and browsing Operation Sports

Do you know how to do anything other than troll?

If you've got a counter argument, I'd be glad to hear it. Until then, get off your high horse. Your attitude on these forums really isn't making my opinion of cops change, it's just furthering the beliefs I hold.

[baumy300]

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

Do you know how to do anything other than troll?

Yesss!!!!





Brb - I'm going out to do some paTROLLING!

[Knight165]

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

Do you know how to do anything other than troll?

If you've got a counter argument, I'd be glad to hear it. Until then, get off your high horse. Your attitude on these forums really isn't making my opinion of cops change, it's just furthering the beliefs I hold.

Funny....but you're really changing my belief in perps.
They really can be better than some people:wink:
Have a nice "life".

M.K.
Knight165