- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
How is the police shooting a suspect resisting lawful arrest and fleeing worse than the criminals?
Iirc, the Supreme Court found it was unlawful seizure vis-a-vis the Fourth Amendment.
rights to be secure in person vs govt seizure > state's interest in stopping suspects/criminals who are not some sort of a grave danger to someone.
I think that's how they framed it.
You seem to be saying that the value of the state's interest in stopping offenders is greater than the value of your own life.
Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.
Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for? If so, then why plant the taser on him?
Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.
Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for?
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.
When I was 16, I ran from the police when they showed up to bust us for skinny dipping in the local public pool. There were about 40 of us including the mayors daughter, the chief of polices son, and the athletic directors daughter. (I got away)..
So in your estimation.. if the police had opened fire on us as we fled.. then it would be a "good shoot"?
Wow....authoritarians.
You're using a lot of "ifs" for government force that takes life. Instead of "ifs" do you have numbers? Proof? Evidence?
So let's say a cop shoots you in the back and claims you were fleeing....Dead mean don't testify. How can you be sure in the absence of video evidence that the person was actually fleeing and not simply staged execution?
Let's say a person flees and....
What if the person has a mental illness?
What if the person is experiencing a medical illness?
What if a person is having a reaction to a medication and aren't in a "normal" state of mind?
What if a person is severely distraught over the loss of a loved one?
How does a cop differentiate on the spot?
How does the punishment fit the crime? Running is punishable by death? Are we in N. Korea?
Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.
Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for? If so, then why plant the taser on him?
Assuming that the stats released from a totalitarian society would be reliable, you're just saying that you value safety and authority more than you value liberty and life.Check the international crime stats. Countries with the strictest enforcement and harshest punishments always have lower crime rates. True, that sometimes what they consider a crime does not hold up under our value systems, but it definitely proves that harsh, strict handling of criminals gives the lowest crime rates.
And folks like yourself who find the Bill of Rights inconvenient for the State. You guys are also pushing for us to become more like NK.No, we are not North Korea, at least not yet, give the liberals and other socialist leaning factions a few more decades and we will be there.
Punishment doesn't have to fit the crime. Punishment has to deter others from committing the same offence. No, running should not be punishable by death, lots of people do it for exercise. However, fleeing to avoid prosecution for criminal activities, I fully support shooting the scumbags.
No, we are not North Korea, at least not yet, give the liberals and other socialist leaning factions a few more decades and we will be there.
Amendment VIII - Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Wow....authoritarians.
You're using a lot of "ifs" for government force that takes life. Instead of "ifs" do you have numbers? Proof? Evidence?
If you had known the cops would shoot you if you ran, would you have ran?
Check the international crime stats. Countries with the strictest enforcement and harshest punishments always have lower crime rates.
As you were already told; If they are following policy, there is nothing damning about it.That's damning.
Stop with the asininity Simon.Excon's assessment of Slager's assessment of Slager's culpability and liability may not actually have that much legal bearing.
Wrong. The SCOTUS clearly says otherwise.You can't justify shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.
Wrong.You can't justify him picking up that taser and dropping it next to the victim.
:dohPolicy does not trump law.
The point was that what you said was irrelevant and not worth refuting.If you can refute what I present, do so, otherwise save it.
You keep using that word--"clearly."So far, in accordance with the evidence he clearly didn't commit a murder and what he may or may not have believed at the moment does make a difference.
Wrong. The SCOTUS clearly says otherwise.
Wrong.
It can easily be explained as already stated.
So far though, all we have is those like you making unsupported assertions that is was a plant when there is nothing that supports that assertion.
:doh
Clearly you know not of what you speaking.
So let's show everybody you don't.
In reference to the "policy" reply you quoted, what law are you speaking about?
If you had known the cops would shoot you if you ran, would you have ran?
:naughtyThe point was that what you said was irrelevant and not worth refuting.
:dohYou keep using that word--"clearly."
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oy vey! :dohIf it were obvious that Slager did not commit murder, then he would not have been charged. If he had been charged anyway, the relevant Policeman Benevolent Associations would be helping Slager. But Slager was charged with murder and the PBAs are not helping him.
On the other side of the fence we have, the local law enforcement, the relevant PBAs, much of the media, and, apparently, most of the posters here.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if contrary to your assertion, that most people who have viewed the video decided that it "clearly" was murder.
Given all of these things, your use of the word "clearly" seems to be clearly questionable.
You are again speaking foolish nonsense, as this is not about me.I am quite willing to concede that you are unable to see how Slager's actions could constitute murder.
There's plenty of evidence to indicate that you are having trouble understanding how a reasonable person could see what Slager did as murder.
Wrong.Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWrong. The SCOTUS clearly says otherwise.
Wrong. He wasn't a threat when he was running away, you can see that the officer knew that when he planted the taser on him,.
:dohThere are good cops, there are bad cops, "Good cops" that make excuses for bad cops, are not good cops. keep that in mind.Wrong.
It can easily be explained as already stated.
So far though, all we have is those like you making unsupported assertions that is was a plant when there is nothing that supports that assertion.
There is NO explaination for tampering of evidence that can be justified by the law here.
If you disagree, please show me relevant case law.
:dohTennesee vs Garner:
"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
You are once again, wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?