Hard to imagine that there are people who feel under no circumstance is..

[Booneville Dawg]

it acceptable for a Law Enforcement Officer to shoot someone in the back, no matter what that individual may have done. I can just imagine how folks would feel if an officer let someone go that had just killed multiple school children because the only shot available was the back.

 

[Ty TyDawg]

People are basically stupid.

 

[McDonoughDawg]

I did not read that on here earlier....

But you may not be implying that either.

 

[BullochDawg]

Bet if a thug was getting ready to kill their kid it'd be magically OK**

**

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Re: I did not read that on here earlier....

look down

 

[McDonoughDawg]

I did, I see folks qualifying their opinion..

It appears that most were talking about a certain case....the one that started the thread.

That said, if we all always agreed, the US would be one boring place...and possibly some type of Theocracy, I do not want that.

This post was edited on 4/8 5:06 PM by McDonoughDawg

 

[_Keef_]

I think he was talking about this case and 99% of any other instances ..

I absolutely do not want cops being judge, jury and executioner unless their own life or someone else's is in immediate danger, or in the most extreme circumstances such as what you just posited; circumstances that a majority of police will probably never even see in their careers. They are given incredible power and they should exercise restraint when possible and let the judicial system sort things out. That's JMO. I really don't necessarily think it is a liberal one.

 

[OlecountryDawg]

Look I spent 11 years in LE and that was justified period.

That was plain murder . Is it capital murder no but he was wrong .

I have taking police side many times on here and this one time I'm not . It was wrong .
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Re: I did, I see folks qualifying their opinion..

I am getting old, but I sure thought that is what was meant ( my post and the reply)


In this case very true, but there are exceptions. If someone is
fleeing who poses a life endangering threat to society, then the officer(s)
should do whatever is necessary to stop the perp.





What? Dumbest thing I've ever seen written. A
cop, who maybe has a high school education, is all the sudden now the arbiter
of justice for a capital case. No one who was a part of creating this
country ever envisioned anything like that. The exact opposite in fact.

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Read the post OCD, I agree with you-am talking exceptions**

nm

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Re: I think he was talking about this case and 99% of any other instances ..

That is what I meant

 

[Koogan]

Right. And I don't get a lot of the comments...

...about how stupid all the cops in the world are. For every situation like the one in SC there are probably 10,000+ where the cop doesn't even fire his gun.

No one believes cops are all Einsteins, but for the pay and training they get, I think most do a good job and handle most situations properly.

 

[MusicCityDawg]

There was a case here in TN that set the bar here for use of deadly force..

The ONLY standard that allows it to be used on a fleeing, unarmed suspect is if the Officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is an immanent threat to the public.

I don't think that was the case with the current story.

As I pointed out in a previous post, what do you suppose would happen to one of us if a guy tried to break into your home or even punched you in the face and then as he ran away up the street, you shot him dead in the back?

You'd be charged with 1st degree murder, even here in TN. And we have pretty strong laws in favor of armed citizens defending themselves. Shouldn't be any different for the cop.


This post was edited on 4/8 5:33 PM by MusicCityDawg

 

[OlecountryDawg]

I had a older deputy told me during the bham police

beat down of the fleeing suspect on 459 . Doesn't matter what the public thinks we still going to get paid and if hail breaks we will get OT :

I said that to say this , I don't care what people say really . Most would pee on themselves if they had to do this job .

So to hail with them
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Sickasadawg]

Watch the B Film "Felon" with Stephen Dorff and Val Kilmer

Dorff is a family man that shoots a fleeing felon in the back.

He went to prison

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Officer can be held liable if he lets one go and someone else gets harmed..

There have been several officers sued who let drivers over the legal alcohol limit go and then those drivers were involved in fatal accidents.

This post was edited on 4/8 6:52 PM by Booneville Dawg

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Re: There was a case here in TN that set the bar here for use of deadly force..

The Supreme Court clarified the use of deadly force in that case:

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

 

[Dawg to the Bone]

In most states it is still legal to use deadly force on someone in the commission of a forcible felony and those whose escape may pose an imminent immediate danger to the public if allowed to get away. However, police have not been able to shoot fleeing felons for over 40 years now. It appears that the justices see this as depriving the criminal the right to a trial.