Officer charged in fatal shooting of Black man at San Francisco Walmart

[rahl]

Not true. A deranged man refusing to comply with police while holding a baseball bat after the improper implementation of non lethal force to subdue him does not then justify the use of deadly force to end the encounter, as we have all seem to have learned on this thread.

actually yes, it does legally justify it. The man was armed and was a threat to officers and others.

 

[joko104]

The "advancing" claim is the sticking point. I watched the video and I didn't see him advance on the officer in a threatening manner. Apparently neither did the DA.

This man deserved to be tackled, tazed, struck with a nightstick, and/or pepper sprayed and arrested for refusing to comply while armed with a bat. He did not deserve to be executed.

What the hell are you talking about? Democrats ran to a Democrat appointed federal judge to get using pepper spray and tasers banned - and got that order. He was already tazered, twice.

Just admit you believe people have no right to defend themselves or anyone else and be truthful about it.

 

[joko104]

I think the Defense attorney should offer the prosecutor that he'll donate $50,000 to the charity of the prosecutor's choice if he will agree to being hit in the head just one time with that same baseball bat.

That same offer should be made to every witness for the prosecution including the coroner, of course.

How loud do you think that DA would be objecting to the offer? Thank any witness would agree to that? It's not lethal and doesn't really hurt an person at all to try to hit a home run with their face, head or back of their neck. That is the defense the Democratic Party makes claiming the baseball bat carrying rioters are "peaceful protesters."

I can assure everyone it is 100% possible to kill someone with a baseball bat.

 

[joko104]

actually yes, it does legally justify it. The man was armed and was a threat to officers and others.

Don't you like how so many Democrats claim the more deranged an armed man is, the safer he is.

Maybe that is why they see Joe Biden as so safe - a deranged old man who advocated running out onto the porch with a double barrel shotgun firing into the dark at scary noises.

 

[joko104]

What is "not a deadly threat" when a man is armed and advancing?

FFS the only thing more of a deadly threat would be a knife and advancing or a gun and aiming.

Was he armed?

Yes.

Was he advancing.

Yes.

A clear threat.

Also non-lethal tasers had failed to stop him - twice.

Remember, these same Democrats demand the officers not do anything that might harm him if they tried to wrestle him down instead.

Basically they are ranting that anyone can beat anyone with a baseball bat - and it is entirely legal so the police shouldn't even have been there. He could attack anyone with the bat, steal anything he wanted to steal and even burn the store down - and nothing should be done to interfere with their claim everyone has a constitutional right to make such attacks against others and other's property.

 

[joko104]

Ever SEE anyone beaten with a baseball bat? It's not pretty, though I gather most Democrats on this thread would allow anyone to beat them, their spouse, parents and children with a baseball bat because they claim they can't seriously hurt anyone.

 

[SMTA]

Ever SEE anyone beaten with a baseball bat? It's not pretty, though I gather most Democrats on this thread would allow anyone to beat them, their spouse, parents and children with a baseball bat because they claim they can't seriously hurt anyone.

You should not brag about beating people with baseball bats

 

[Michael Johnson]

Who in their right mind would join the police force in California or several other big cities today. Charge with a homicide. Ridiculous.

Enough said.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That's what the officer claimed. But I watched the video, did you? I didn't see him advance on the officer.

Did you watch this video? You can clearly see him slowly moving (staggering) toward the cops:

San Leandro Police Release Video Of Fatal Officer Shooting Of Man Wielding Baseball Bat – CBS San Francisco

You might say they could have simply backed up to remain safe and continued trying to de-escalate, instead of standing their ground and shooting him. That's the only possible "wrongdoing" I can see here on the part of the cops. He was certainly moving toward them though, and came within reach of being able to hit them if he decided to take a swing.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Not true. A deranged man refusing to comply with police while holding a baseball bat after the improper implementation of non lethal force to subdue him does not then justify the use of deadly force to end the encounter, as we have all seem to have learned on this thread.

Police officers are not required to "take one for the team"

improper implementation of non lethal force So........... you are a tactical instructor now? :lamo

 

[Binary_Digit]

[FONT="] A police officer in San Leandro, California, has been [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15116056/2020/09/Fletcher-Complaint.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18"]charged with voluntary manslaughter[/URL][FONT="] in the fatal shooting of a Black man wielding a baseball bat inside a Walmart, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy E. O'Malley announced Wednesday. Officer Jason Fletcher shot and killed 33-year-old Steven Demarco Taylor on April 18.

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT="]Officers were called to the Walmart located on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay Area when Taylor allegedly tried to leave the store without paying, [/FONT]CBS San Francisco previously reported[FONT="]. [B]Bodycam footage shows police telling Taylor multiple times to drop the baseball bat[/B] he was holding, but Taylor continues holding the bat. [B]Officers then use Tasers on Taylor twice, but he continued to advance toward the officers. Fletcher then shoots Taylor once in the chest, causing him to drop the bat.[/B] Another officer used a third Taser on Taylor after he was shot. [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT="]
[/FONT]

Officer charged in fatal shooting of Black man at San Francisco Walmart

Non-lethal force had failed.

So in California it is now legal to beat police officers to death with a baseball bat - and it is a crime for the officers to not allow themselves to be beaten to death.

Why any police in any Democratic jurisdiction is still willing to do anything is beyond me since it is basically illegal to be police now in those jurisdictions other than volunteering to be murdered defenselessly.

Not a threat? He ignored the officers' command to drop the weapon and then advanced on them with the weapon. Why don't you consider that a threat?

The question I ask is whether or not the cops had no other choice. He didn't suddenly lunge at them, he was staggering very slowly. And we can't see what was behind the cops, but I assume they were probably not cornered and trapped.

On the other hand, we also can't see how he was acting prior to being stunned by the tasers (because the body cam wasn't turned on yet? Those laws are still stupid BTW). His staggering and slow walking may have been just a temporary thing and the officers knew it. It mostly looks like suicide by cop to me.

 

[lwf]

He was an immediate threat. He took two taser hits and continued to advance at the officers.

That is in dispute. The officer's story doesn't match the body cam footage.

 

[lwf]

it does in my book

Your book is incorrect. Here is what the Code of Federal Regulations says about when deadly force is authorized:

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

10 CFR SS 1047.7 - Use of deadly force. | CFR | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This mirrors the use of deadly force in pretty much every local police department in the country.

 

[lwf]

What is "not a deadly threat" when a man is armed and advancing?

FFS the only thing more of a deadly threat would be a knife and advancing or a gun and aiming.

Was he armed?

Yes.

Was he advancing.

Yes.

A clear threat.

He wasn't advancing.

Being armed and not advancing in a threatening manner does not make you a threat, else you could be shot for carrying a concealed firearm.

 

[lwf]

actually yes, it does legally justify it. The man was armed and was a threat to officers and others.

In fact the DA determined that we was not a threat, which is backed up by the body cam footage. Hence the charge of voluntary manslaughter.

 

[noonereal]

Your book is incorrect. Here is what the Code of Federal Regulations says about when deadly force is authorized:

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

10 CFR SS 1047.7 - Use of deadly force. | CFR | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This mirrors the use of deadly force in pretty much every local police department in the country.

my book is not incorrect, I did not receipt law, I simple expressed my opinion on how it should be.

 

[lwf]

What the hell are you talking about? Democrats ran to a Democrat appointed federal judge to get using pepper spray and tasers banned - and got that order. He was already tazered, twice.

Just admit you believe people have no right to defend themselves or anyone else and be truthful about it.

People have no right to claim self defense when it is determined that a reasonable person in their situation would not have been in imminent fear for their life. The DA determined that a reasonable police officer would not have been in fear for his or her life in that encounter, and therefore charged the officer with voluntary manslaughter. A determination that is supported by video evidence.

 

[lwf]

Did you watch this video? You can clearly see him slowly moving (staggering) toward the cops:

San Leandro Police Release Video Of Fatal Officer Shooting Of Man Wielding Baseball Bat – CBS San Francisco

You might say they could have simply backed up to remain safe and continued trying to de-escalate, instead of standing their ground and shooting him. That's the only possible "wrongdoing" I can see here on the part of the cops. He was certainly moving toward them though, and came within reach of being able to hit them if he decided to take a swing.

Slowly staggering in an officer's general direction is not a threatening advance. Lethal force was not justified.

 

[lwf]

Police officers are not required to "take one for the team"

improper implementation of non lethal force So........... you are a tactical instructor now? :lamo

No they aren't. And there is absolutely no indication that this officer or anyone else would have had he refrained from shooting a stumbling suspect in the chest. That makes it voluntary manslaughter instead of a righteous shooting.

 

[lwf]

my book is not incorrect, I did not receipt law, I simple expressed my opinion on how it should be.

So let's say it's a black-out drunk white teenager wearing a baseball cap with a bat over his shoulder who is refusing to comply. He could be a deadly threat and he's not cooperating. So just shoot him in the chest and call an ambulance?

 

[noonereal]

So let's say it's a black-out drunk white teenager wearing a baseball cap with a bat over his shoulder who is refusing to comply. He could be a deadly threat and he's not cooperating. So just shoot him in the chest and call an ambulance?

taze him first like they did

have to be fair

if he starts to swing the bat (goes for a knief), did not respond to tazer, shoot

what do you think, let him play softball with the officers head? Not me brother

 

[lwf]

taze him first like they did

have to be fair

if he starts to swing the bat (goes for a knief), did not respond to tazer, shoot

what do you think, let him play softball with the officers head? Not me brother

What if he doesn't swing the bat or go for a knife? What if he simply backs away from the officers without dropping his bat, and then stumbles forward slightly in his drunken stupor? Kill him and be done with it?

 

[Fledermaus]

That is in dispute. The officer's story doesn't match the body cam footage.

Was he or was he not armed still advancing after two uses of a taser?

 

[Fledermaus]

He wasn't advancing.

Being armed and not advancing in a threatening manner does not make you a threat, else you could be shot for carrying a concealed firearm.

Yes, he was advancing.

 

[lwf]

Was he or was he not armed still advancing after two uses of a taser?

He was not. He was armed and still partially upright after two uses of a taser. He was then shot.