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

[justabubba]

The hill you're willing to die on (so to speak of course) is *PER ENCOUNTER* which you've spoken of only rhetorically rather than statistically.

I'm documenting crime rate in connection with the Violent & Lethal National Police Crime Wave against black Americans especially but Black Americans as a class or as a public in the body politic.

Zimmerman btw was stalking Trayvon who had exited a convenience store where he bought Skittles and a coke. The stalking by the flatfoot reject Zimmerman occurred clearly and unmistakably, and only, because when Zimmrman left his residence that night he went out to get himself, um, ONE. A we know what. This was obvious from the first reports.

Zimmerman was stalking a black youth in the night who was wearing a hoodie and munching Skittles because Zimmerman had determined that on that night he was going to get himself a we know what.

A suspected thief?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Next..
Ummm.. if the taser was somehow managed to "go at the officers balls...while he was on top of the mans back... I mean now you are saying that the suspect would be tasing the officers balls through his own body?

I mean what I've said multiple times: Lyoya had demonstrated a willingness to and capability of defeating the officer's control efforts. Doing this again would be all that's required to enable him to strike the officer with the taser without first passing his hand through solid matter.

Why would the officer simply allow it to happen and not simply.. oh.. BACK UP. so that it doesn;t touch him?

Reactionary gap.

I'm not surprised you've never heard of it, since you have no experience in this field whatsoever.

Combine that with the obvious exhaustion and it's entirely possible (and even likely) that he would have been unable to create distance before Lyoya could apply the taser to any part of the officer's body he wished.

Dude.. you don;t understand the standard.. which you demonstrate repeatedly.

Says the guy who claims "totality of circumstances doesn't apply to deadly force."

Riiiiiiiight.

 

[jaeger19]

I mean what I've said multiple times: Lyoya had demonstrated a willingness to and capability of defeating the officer's control efforts. Doing this again would be all that's required to enable him to strike the officer with the taser without first passing his hand through solid matter.


Reactionary gap.

I'm not surprised you've never heard of it, since you have no experience in this field whatsoever.

Combine that with the obvious exhaustion and it's entirely possible (and even likely) that he would have been unable to create distance before Lyoya could apply the taser to any part of the officer's body he wished.


Says the guy who claims "totality of circumstances doesn't apply to deadly force."

Riiiiiiiight.

Yep. He could prevent the officer from making him comply.
That does not make him a deadly threat.
This also does not mean he was capable of superhuman ninja moves and pass a taser through his own body to contact the officers testicle and hold it there for a significant period of time.

Reactionary gap???? Come now.
So the ninja like suspect has to pass the taser through his own body at a speed the officer cannot react..such that tge taser will be held for a period of time against the officer's testicle so that the officer is not able to respond at all.
Wow... you should write Hollywood scripts. Where they can surround a guy and all shoot him without anyone getting hit.
Sheesh.
By the way..I already addressed the totality of circumstances thing. You made it into something it wasn't.

 

[armoredsole]

The link: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michigan-city-release-video-death-police-officer-84062561

The headline: Video: Michigan cop on Black man's back, fatally shot him

The lede: GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- A Black man face-down on the ground was fatally shot in the back of the head by a Michigan police officer, the violent climax of a traffic stop, brief foot chase and struggle over a stun gun, according to videos of the April 4 incident released Wednesday.

The comment: Guns. Again. Another person dead. Perhaps we should seek less-deadly ways for the police to effectively subdue people than shooting them with the intent to kill them.

Guns.

Again.

Another person dead.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.

Note: I reply to all who quote my posts, excepting only those whose posts I no longer read.

When you fight with the cops, that's what you deserve.

 

[armoredsole]

The skin color of both men to me is irrelevant. The video shows the police officer lying on his back and shooting him in the head execution style. That is wrong.

Letting him go would have been wronger.

 

[Jezcoe]

Letting him go would have been wronger.

Why? If Lyoya had walked away, only to be arrested later with the proper amount of resources devoted to arrest him properly and he was still alive... how would that have been the wrong answer?

 

[armoredsole]

Why? If Lyoya had walked away, only to be arrested later with the proper amount of resources devoted to arrest him properly and he was still alive... how would that have been the wrong answer?

Why not just require the cops to suck their dicks. Also, maybe the cops have better things to do than to see to it that a criminal's dick is properly sucked.

 

[Hamish Howl]

We got a live one here.

 

[Jezcoe]

Well... that took a turn.

 

[jaeger19]

Well... that took a turn.

Actually not a turn exactly..the righties here were already heading there..

 

[armoredsole]

Actually not a turn exactly..the righties here were already heading there..

Either you fight crime or you don't. Since the beginning of written language laws were made. And no doubt those to enforce those laws. The reason why things were that way is because lawlessness doesn't work. If you start letting criminals decide whether or not they want to be arrested, lawlessness is what you will end up with.

 

[jaeger19]

Either you fight crime or you don't. Since the beginning of written language laws were made. And no doubt those to enforce those laws. The reason why things were that way is because lawlessness doesn't work. If you start letting criminals decide whether or not they want to be arrested, lawlessness is what you will end up with.

Yeah whatever.
We know your real thoughts.

Tell me..when the Jan 6th rioters refused to obey commands to stop..and forced their way to the capital steps chanting kill mike pence. ..should the capital police opened fire en masses killing them all?

 

[Torus34]

When you fight with the cops, that's what you deserve.

Hi, armoredsole.

Thank you for taking time to reply to my post.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Right wingers, everybody. Just kill the suspects. Don't even bother trying to take them in alive.

He did try to take the suspect in alive, it’s just that guy didn’t want to be taken in alive

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What you did was argue that a police officer could play a laundry list of what if games to justify the use of deadly force..
" so while he coukd have managed miracously to contort himself to press the taser against me. Causing pain..and he could have managed o keep it pressed against me despite my ability to back away..and while he kept it pressed against .e with his right hand..he could have been able to use his left hand and draw my service weapon and could have then shot me.
So I had to shoot him on the back of the head when he was on all fours because it " could" have happened.

In fact that can happen and maybe much faster then you realize. Losing a fight when you have a gun is not an option because then the other person can take it

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Oh yes..I mean the officer shouldn't like..EVALUATE the situation..
Like " gee..I just kneed this guy..struck him" and he hasn't retaliated once but instead keeps trying to just get away.. "
Look dude..the only one making crap up is you.
Violently resisted?

Yes

By violent walking away?

That is resisting arrest

Violently trying to stand up?

Yes, that is resisting arrest

Violently wriggling. ?

Yes, In fact

Come now..stop.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well, if you believe that is what was in the officer's mind, and even if a DA is pressured to file a murder charge, it will have to be a jury which decides on whether or not the prosecution is able to prove the required mens rea to satisfy a murder charge, and as you know, it only takes one juror to disagree---so fat chance on that ever ending in a murder conviction. And unlike the police officer who accidentally discharged her weapon and killed a non compliant subject when she thought she was deploying her taser. This officer in this case intentionally fired his weapon, so it will not be a negligent manslaughter charge. He intended to use lethal force to stop what he reasonably believed was a threat to his life. So. if a DA disagrees with that, he will need to be charged with 2nd degree murder, which WILL NOT ever be winnable for the prosecution.

Therefore, all your posts are just bags of hot gas. Worst that could happen to this cop is his department fires him under some claim that he failed to follow a policy BEFORE the point of shooting. And even if that happens, the officer's civil lawyer will sue the city, and he will get his job back with back pay.

And that officer didn’t break the law. The weak judge allowed the prosecution to misrepresent the law. If you shoot someone with a gun mistakenly believing it’s a taser then you only have to have the justification for using a taser. It was a clear case of a mistake of fact accident and in fact Minnesota has case law to that exact point.

 

[jaeger19]

In fact that can happen and maybe much faster then you realize. Losing a fight when you have a gun is not an option because then the other person can take it

Pooh.
People " lose* fights all the time and are not disabled or unconscious etc.
If the officer had let tge guy walk away..he would have " lost"..
And they both would be alive.

 

[jaeger19]

And that officer didn’t break the law. The weak judge allowed the prosecution to misrepresent the law. If you shoot someone with a gun mistakenly believing it’s a taser then you only have to have the justification for using a taser. It was a clear case of a mistake of fact accident and in fact Minnesota has case law to that exact point.

Yeah it's not that simple.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes

That is resisting arrest

Yes, that is resisting arrest

Yes, In fact

Your point?.

 

[Excon]

George Zimmerman was a loser. He was carrying a weapon as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. That was the very first thing they told you in training for the program. I was a neighborhood watch volunteer. You’re supposed to observe and report. That’s all.

I’m quite sure that the local police worked about him, and what he might do.

As it was, they had to stomp all over the crime scene to keep him out of jail.

Your opinion is as wrong as it is stupid.
He was not out on a Neighborhood Watch patrol, he was on his way to the store when he saw a person acting suspiciously.

 

[Excon]

Interesting that you accept the narrative of the guy who was carrying a weapon and literally chased an innocent young man who was on the phone and minding his business.

More interesting that you would engage in dishonesty.
Innocent? Minding his own business?
He was seen acting suspiciously by being up on a person's lawn and looking into their window.
That activity in no way makes him innocent, let alone minding his own business.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Pooh.
People " lose* fights all the time and are not disabled or unconscious etc.

I do not want a society where the police lose fights.

If the officer had let tge guy walk away..he would have " lost"..

No, society would have lost because that means. That those who victimize other people can just decide to not suffer consequences and the police have to allow them to decide that.

And they both would be alive.

Or, he could’ve complied with lawful arrest and they would both be alive. There is nothing immoral about using for us to affect and arrest

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your point?.

What was yours? Your writing leads one to believe that you doubt the idea this man was violently resisting arrest. When he is on two different cameras violently resisting arrest.

 

[jaeger19]

I do not want a society where the police lose fights.

No, society would have lost because that means. That those who victimize other people can just decide to not suffer consequences and the police have to allow them to decide that.

Or, he could’ve complied with lawful arrest and they would both be alive. There is nothing immoral about using for us to affect and arrest

I do not want an authoritarian state where the police are not responsible to the people.
2. See above
3. See above.