• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan cop on Black man's back, fatally shot him

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,273
Reaction score
8,630
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
not having been a cop, let me ask:

what should that police officer done instead?
Called for backup. Kept the suspect in sight. Followed procedure and not escalated. And not put himself in a compromised position.

Why is it that in all of these scenarios, officers are absolved from violating procedure and common sense?
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
46,192
Reaction score
12,156
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Right you said disarming the cop was "hitting back" Im just trying to figure what you think the initial "hit" from the cop was. It couldnt be like in the ridiculous caricature of you above, that you literally think that attempting to arrest someone who flees a traffic stop is aggression for which disarming the cop was "hitting back" in other words, he was defending himself.
Did you know that it is a waste of time to provide a rational answer to an irrational post?

There, now I've wasted my time.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I already answered this but.
He should have let the guy walk away. Secured the friend in the car and the car..thus having a secured both the potential stolen car and accomplice...and all evidence..
Then waited for back up and then gone after the man on foot .
Instead he tried to take down tge suspect..giving the potential accomplice time to either 1. Simply drive off with possibly stolen car.
2. Come up and kill him while he is engaged with the first suspect.. and they both drive off with stolen car.
by secured the friend in the car you mean you would have handcuffed him to the car?
and what would have been the charges against the passenger which were used to cuff him?
would you have waved goodbye to the perp as he left the scene?
what would you have told your supervisor as explanation why you allowed that perp to walk?

i would have instead waited on backup

but the cop did none of those things
however, that does not mean he was not in a situation where he needed to defend himself from personal harm
which he did
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Called for backup. Kept the suspect in sight. Followed procedure and not escalated. And not put himself in a compromised position.

Why is it that in all of these scenarios, officers are absolved from violating procedure and common sense?
what causes you to believe the officer was absolved of violating procedure and failing to exercise good judgment?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
by secured the friend in the car you mean you would have handcuffed him to the car?
and what would have been the charges against the passenger which were used to cuff him?
would you have waved goodbye to the perp as he left the scene?
what would you have told your supervisor as explanation why you allowed that perp to walk?

i would have instead waited on backup

but the cop did none of those things
however, that does not mean he was not in a situation where he needed to defend himself from personal harm
which he did
I would have had the friend locked in the back of my shop.
I would have probable cause by that point..
And stop being silly..
You and your waving.
When my back up and I caught the guy on foot and arrested him..
The supervisor would have given me a "well " done".
Let's see..what do you think would happen if the supervisor came on the scene with me and ..I had lost the car..the accomplice..had fired my taser twice ineffectively..lost control of the taser..and now shot a man in the nack of the head..
You think he would be giving me a medal?
LM A O you silly dude!!

No the officer was pretty dumb.
And he ended up getting frustrated and not knowing what else to do to make the suspect comply..shot him in the back of the head..
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would have had the friend locked in the back of my shop.
I would have probable cause by that point..

And stop being silly..
You and your waving.
When my back up and I caught the guy on foot and arrested him..
The supervisor would have given me a "well " done".
Let's see..what do you think would happen if the supervisor came on the scene with me and ..I had lost the car..the accomplice..had fired my taser twice ineffectively..lost control of the taser..and now shot a man in the nack of the head..
You think he would be giving me a medal?
LM A O you silly dude!!

No the officer was pretty dumb.
And he ended up getting frustrated and not knowing what else to do to make the suspect comply..shot him in the back of the head..
[emphasis added by bubba]

what was your probable cause?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
[emphasis added by bubba]

what was your probable cause?
The plates being wrong and the fleeing of the suspect..would give me reasonable probable cause a felony had been committed by the pair.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The plates being wrong and the fleeing of the suspect..would give me reasonable probable cause a felony had been committed by the pair.
how would the passenger be found responsible for incorrect plates?

why would the passenger be held responsible for a fleeing driver?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
how would the passenger be found responsible for incorrect plates?

why would the passenger be held responsible for a fleeing driver?
Using the wrong could indicate that it's a stolen car..or that they are using the wrong plates to avoid detection of a crime.
The plates and driver flleeing could indicate that they are both guilty of a crime.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Using the wrong could indicate that it's a stolen car..or that they are using the wrong plates to avoid detection of a crime.
the passenger was not driving
how could he be held responsible for the car tags being illegitimate?
The plates and driver flleeing could indicate that they are both guilty of a crime.
the passenger didn't flee; how can you justify arresting him for the actions of the driver ... just as above?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
the passenger was not driving
how could he be held responsible for the car tags being illegitimate?

the passenger didn't flee; how can you justify arresting him for the actions of the driver ... just as above?
I explained already. If you don't get it at this point..thats on you.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I explained already. If you don't get it at this point..thats on you.
actually, i don't believe you explained anything

you were going to charge the passenger for the actions of the driver

are reserve cops provided with training?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
actually, i don't believe you explained anything

you were going to charge the passenger for the actions of the driver

are reserve cops provided with training?
I am not going to charge anyone you ridiculous dude. It's the district attorney prosecuting the case that charges someone.
Sweet baby Jesus..you should just keep quiet.
Under the law..
1. I would have probable cause to believe a felony crime was committed by the passenger. It's reasonable to believe that they both were in commission of a crime based on the fact that the plates did not match and the driver fled. I would have probable cause to make an arrest.
2. I most certainly would have reasonable suspicion of a crime to detain the passenger for investigation. Which means I can handcuff him..and put him in my shop. At least until we discovered if the car was stolen etc.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not going to charge anyone you ridiculous dude. It's the district attorney prosecuting the case that charges someone.
Sweet baby Jesus..you should just keep quiet.
Under the law..
1. I would have probable cause to believe a felony crime was committed by the passenger. It's reasonable to believe that they both were in commission of a crime based on the fact that the plates did not match and the driver fled. I would have probable cause to make an arrest.
that's so much bullshit
all you know as a leo is that the person was a passenger in the car driven by the fellow you waved to as he left the scene
you have absolutely no knowledge that that passenger was anything other than a law abiding passenger
2. I most certainly would have reasonable suspicion of a crime to detain the passenger for investigation. Which means I can handcuff him..and put him in my shop. At least until we discovered if the car was stolen etc.
then you would not be arresting him
but you would be handcuffing him and locking him in your police vehicle
how long do you get to hold him without having basis to arrest him?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
that's so much bullshit
all you know as a leo is that the person was a passenger in the car driven by the fellow you waved to as he left the scene
you have absolutely no knowledge that that passenger was anything other than a law abiding passenger

then you would not be arresting him
but you would be handcuffing him and locking him in your police vehicle
how long do you get to hold him without having basis to arrest him?
Umm what?
They pulled over a car with the wrong license plates. Which reasonably could mean the car is stolen by the two men.. ..or that the two men in side were committing crimes or were about to commit crimes and were using the wrong plates to reduce the chances of being identified.
THEN. Upon questioning the driver who seems either under the influence or mentally impaired or both..the driver flees.
That in any jurisdiction is a reasonable belief. I.e. probable cause that the two men have committed a crime. In any case its certain reasonable suspicion.

As far as how long the passenger could be arrested or detained? There is no definitive timeline. Likely the reasonable amount would be considered the time it took to apprehend the other suspect and the time to verify that no crimes had been committed by the passenger.
 

Grizzly Adams

COVID breakthrough
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,310
Reaction score
1,886
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here's the gist - force, including lethal force, is only justified in certain circumstances. There is an escalating rubric for the application of force. This officer ignored the whole ball of wax. In most jurisdictions, the aggressor cannot claim self-defense. Do a little reading my friend. Goodbye again.
Anyone who actually made the effort to read the GRPD's use of force policy would see that the officer reacted appropriately to Lyoya's escalations.

Perhaps it's you who should "do a little reading."
 

Grizzly Adams

COVID breakthrough
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,310
Reaction score
1,886
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
1. No you aren't using the totality of circumstances..you are omitting things that happened and making things up that didn't.
One sentence, three lies.

The suspect didn't act aggressively but simply tried to get away. You cannot point to a kick ..a punch a slap etc.
Already dealt with this and explained why you're wrong. Not going to do it again in response to your broken record response of "nuh-uh!"

The taser was deployed and on drive stun that even the manufacturer states won't incapacitate. When the suspect was shot there was zero opportunity for the drive stun to be applied to the officer's face or groin. And doing such would cause the officer to recoil.
Again, dealt with this garbage multiple times.

Exhausted? Please..two minutes of lying on the man's back and he is exhausted?
I mean, if you're going to claim all he did was lie on the guy's back, really, what good is this conversation?

He is not exhausted..he is barely winded after shooting the guy
Really starting to think you didn't even watch the video.

2. Bingo. You demonstrate the essence of " comply or die".
If it's "comply or die" then Lyoya would've been shot when he started to run, not two and a half minutes later after running, going to the ground, and stealing the officer's taser.

If anyone watched the videos and didn't know which waswould be the police officer...
Clearly ..everyone would know WHO WAS THE AGGRESSOR.. and who was just trying to get away from the conflict. . And of course it would be the man who was the police officer who was the aggressor.
No, the officer reacted exactly as prescribed by his use of force policy. What people might think if circumstances were different doesn't matter.

If we simply watched the behavior of the two men..it was the officer that was clearly escalating the conflict.
He was doing his job attempting to take a person into custody who was resisting arrest. He has that authority. Using it in the manner prescribed by his policy is not escalation.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
36,954
Reaction score
11,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
One sentence, three lies.


Already dealt with this and explained why you're wrong. Not going to do it again in response to your broken record response of "nuh-uh!"


Again, dealt with this garbage multiple times.


I mean, if you're going to claim all he did was lie on the guy's back, really, what good is this conversation?


Really starting to think you didn't even watch the video.


If it's "comply or die" then Lyoya would've been shot when he started to run, not two and a half minutes later after running, going to the ground, and stealing the officer's taser.


No, the officer reacted exactly as prescribed by his use of force policy. What people might think if circumstances were different doesn't matter.


He was doing his job attempting to take a person into custody who was resisting arrest. He has that authority. Using it in the manner prescribed by his policy is not escalation.
Blah blah blah.
I have debunked everything you have said.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
20,972
Reaction score
7,432
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Disproportionate to what exactly? Fleeing the cops and assaulting an officer to steal his taser and shoot him with it? All because the cop asked for your drivers license?

My first sentence is responsive to your post. Already answered before you asked.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
20,972
Reaction score
7,432
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So this would be OK if the police unjustly killed everyone equally?

I know that's not what you meant, but it helps make my point that this kind of thing should not happen.

A single event is only relevant when the total of those events reveals a significant fact. One fact is, American LEO kill too many citizens, black or white or whatever, though they disproportionately kill more black people than white.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,273
Reaction score
8,630
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A single event is only relevant when the total of those events reveals a significant fact. One fact is, American LEO kill too many citizens, black or white or whatever, though they disproportionately kill more black people than white.
You ever notice that a particular segment of the posters here feel the need to change the facts of the scenario to try to justify their points? It belies a certain attitude to the subject matter. Wonder what that is?
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
57,155
Reaction score
38,101
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A single event is only relevant when the total of those events reveals a significant fact. One fact is, American LEO kill too many citizens, black or white or whatever, though they disproportionately kill more black people than white.
share with us the correct number of perps the law enforcement officers should kill and of that number what portion should be black
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
46,192
Reaction score
12,156
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
share with us the correct number of perps the law enforcement officers should kill and of that number what portion should be black
There is no "correct number of suspected persons" that the police "should kill".

However, if "Group A" comprises 10% of the population, it would not be "suspicious" if the percentage of "suspected persons" that the police killed that belonged to "Group A" was 10% of the number of "suspected persons" that the police killed.

The real issue is to determine the actual size of the actual population to be considered.

If 20% of the total population belongs to "Group X" and if 10% of the "suspected persons" that the police kill belong to "Group X" then the number would be lower than expected.
 
Top Bottom