Cop shoots unarmed man twice in the back and is celebrated?

[HumblePie]

Ed Gavin, former deputy warden for the New York City Department of Corrections, agreed the trooper was justified.

"Article 35 of the (New York) penal law permits you to use deadly physical force to stop a fleeing felon who is either charged with a felony or convicted of a felony," Gavin said.

Edit: Two minutes too late.

Uhh just read the link above.

deadly physical force may be used for such purposes only when he or she
reasonably believes that:
(a) The offense committed by such person was:
(i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or
attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a
person

So did the person use violence when effecting their escape? Because by word of the NY law that is what it reads like.

Otherwise what is to stop cops from letting some criminal "go" and then shoot them in the back as they run and say they where an escaping violent felon that deserved to be shot to be caught?

There are laws like this for a reason to see proper justice done. Hence the SCOTUS ruling which supersedes The law here if it indeed does somehow state what the cop did here was legal.

Don't get me wrong. I do not sympathize with the criminal at all. I just believe in the law and justice. I would have no problem at all if his sentence for his crimes with a death sentence and they carried out with a .45 to the back of his head. If that was the consensus of a trial by jury of his peers.

 

[HumblePie]

This person has slightly different interpretation

It can't be some ambiguous threat, it has to be a clear and present imminent danger to others of the officers. If he was then great! good shoot! If he was running into the woods where there was no one around he could harm at that moment, and his entire escape thus far he hadn't harmed anyone then there isn't a clear and imminent danger posed by him. Thus it is the duty of the officer to see him caught and brought to justice and not to effect justice by his own hands.

What if the cop shot someone else that just happened to look like the escape convict and was running because he had something like an ounce of weed on him? Do you see why that ruling by SCOTUS was stated as such in light of that?

 

[Ns1]

It can't be some ambiguous threat, it has to be a clear and present imminent danger to others of the officers. If he was then great! good shoot! If he was running into the woods where there was no one around he could harm at that moment, and his entire escape thus far he hadn't harmed anyone then there isn't a clear and imminent danger posed by him. Thus it is the duty of the officer to see him caught and brought to justice and not to effect justice by his own hands.

What if the cop shot someone else that just happened to look like the escape convict and was running because he had something like an ounce of weed on him? Do you see why that ruling by SCOTUS was stated as such in light of that?

That's a great argument, I can't wait to hear about it discussed by the courts.

not a slam against you or anything btw, reasonable people can interpret the same thing different ways, and a court will have to figure it out.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Hmm, listen to an internet troll, or the group that founded our nation ... Tough choice.

Hey, Ackmed needs to get his quota of shillposts so he can get paid, don't be so hard on him.

He just "forgets" to hear about anything that isn't a "good shoot" in his mind. Like a cop shooting a man twice in the back and writing a false report, or letting a cop kill his wife in front of other cops, without himself getting shot.

It seems Ackmed supports cops shooting us, but not fellow cops committing a crime. They are allowed to live while we get executed in seconds. But that's a shill for you!

 

[Belegost]

Nope, when you willingly commit a murder, rape a child, etc you forfeit your right to live. Of course not every state agrees, nor do anti-death penalty people, but that is how I feel about it. But hey, good job to everyone with name calling and personal attacks. Really shows your true side.



Because they never punished someone by death back then? Yeah, they did.

Oh, well the 5th and 6th amendments help spell out under what conditions a person can be deprived of their rights to life, liberty, or property:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

So a person may be deprived of their right to life, provided they received legal due process (or happen to be in the military during time of war) which includes a trial by jury, with the assistance of counsel.

For their criminal acts in the past the result of that due process was a life prison term - not execution. And for the crime of escaping prison (and any subsequent crimes) no due process was carried out. Hence at the time of being shot they retained the right to live.

 

[HumblePie]

That's a great argument, I can't wait to hear about it discussed by the courts.

not a slam against you or anything btw, reasonable people can interpret the same thing different ways, and a court will have to figure it out.

Assuming it gets there. DA's can decline to prosecute the officer if they want to and the cop gets a free pass at attempted murder. Two wrongs don't make a right although three lefts do.

 

[HumblePie]

Oh, well the 5th and 6th amendments help spell out under what conditions a person can be deprived of their rights to life, liberty, or property:




So a person may be deprived of their right to life, provided they received legal due process (or happen to be in the military during time of war) which includes a trial by jury, with the assistance of counsel.

For their criminal acts in the past the result of that due process was a life prison term - not execution. And for the crime of escaping prison (and any subsequent crimes) no due process was carried out. Hence at the time of being shot they retained the right to live.

Pretty much this. Which is why cops aren't allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects unless they present a clear and imminent threat to someone else. That's how the Constitution is worded and that is how SCOTUS as ruled in the past on this.

 

[OutHouse]

Uhh just read the link above.



So did the person use violence when effecting their escape? Because by word of the NY law that is what it reads like.

Otherwise what is to stop cops from letting some criminal "go" and then shoot them in the back as they run and say they where an escaping violent felon that deserved to be shot to be caught?

There are laws like this for a reason to see proper justice done. Hence the SCOTUS ruling which supersedes The law here if it indeed does somehow state what the cop did here was legal.

Don't get me wrong. I do not sympathize with the criminal at all. I just believe in the law and justice. I would have no problem at all if his sentence for his crimes with a death sentence and they carried out with a .45 to the back of his head. If that was the consensus of a trial by jury of his peers.

just curious on why you think you know NY law better than NY cops and Lawyers?

 

[HumblePie]

just curious on why you think you know NY law better than NY cops and Lawyers?

It doesn't matter what the law for NY states when the Constitution and rulings by SCOTUS on this very thing completely trump any craptacular law written in the state of NY that tries to go against it. States write stupid laws all the damn time because politicians aren't always very smart, and try to insert their brain malfunctions into such laws. When those laws go against the Constitution and SCOTUS, they get smacked down. Take all the same sex marriage bans that many States had recently. Guess what happened to those laws since Friday?

 

[OutHouse]

Assuming it gets there. DA's can decline to prosecute the officer if they want to and the cop gets a free pass at attempted murder. Two wrongs don't make a right although three lefts do.

The DA will never charge the cop with attempted murder of a escaped convicted murderer.

i cant even believe that this subject is even getting argued. but its P&N where there is a serious warped sense of reality.

 

[OutHouse]

It doesn't matter what the law for NY states when the Constitution and rulings by SCOTUS on this very thing completely trump any craptacular law written in the state of NY that tries to go against it. States write stupid laws all the damn time because politicians aren't always very smart, and try to insert their brain malfunctions into such laws. When those laws go against the Constitution and SCOTUS, they get smacked down. Take all the same sex marriage bans that many States had recently. Guess what happened to those laws since Friday?

probable cause dude, probable cause.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

 

[HumblePie]

The DA will never charge the cop with attempted murder of a escaped convicted murderer.

i cant even believe that this subject is even getting argued. but its P&N where there is a serious warped sense of reality.

Again breaking the law to apprehend a criminal isn't right. When the cops break the law to make their jobs easier society starts to have real problems.

probable cause dude, probable cause.

Probable cause has to be because the person is visually carrying a weapon, has recently hurt someone in their flight from police, or has verbalized their intent to hurt others in their attempts to thwart custody. It's pretty clear how that bar of probable cause should be met. Just because the person was previously convicted for a violent crime doesn't mean their current crime they are being chased for has anything to do with violence or lend credence to the fact the fleeing perp may commit more violence imminently to stay at large.

Yes police work is a tough job and not everyone is cut out for it. But those are the breaks. The job of the police is not to be judge, jury, and executioner. They are to deter crime, apprehend alledged perpetrators of crime, and serve their communities in various fashions that protect the public.

 

[Oyeve]

You guys and your silly constitution.

 

[Sonikku]

It is a privilege to live, not a right.

9/10

 

[Subyman]

Escaped felons can be shot fleeing. They can shoot them as they run away from the prison or if they try to run while picking up litter, etc. Its a different standard, as others have said. I believe it has been determined that they are a "clear and present danger" to society simply being on the run. So fire away

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...roughly-2-miles-from-canadian-border-20150628

Regardless of who the perp was, there is a double standard here.

No it meets the standard rarely seen in good shootings, but not as high as your post of a troll thresd..

 

[Jaskalas]

I'd be more comfortable if the language was for "escaped inmates".

 

[Bock]

Something really needs to be done about DA's & prosecutors. The bad cop shoots are reinforced by the unwillingness of the DA to prosecute. If every cop shoot went to grand jury like all self defense cases {in Texas}; some of the abuses you see/hear/read about wouldn't be happening.

 

[HumblePie]

Escaped felons can be shot fleeing. They can shoot them as they run away from the prison or if they try to run while picking up litter, etc. Its a different standard, as others have said. I believe it has been determined that they are a "clear and present danger" to society simply being on the run. So fire away

Uhh no.

What happens in the case of a mistaken identity of the police thinking the fleeing suspect is an escape felon when it turns out to be some illegal immigrant or dead beat dad with a warrant for failing to pay for his child support? Or some dude with an ounce of weed on him that runs from the police? There are any number of scenarios where a person my flee from the police and where police may mistake the identity of the person they are looking for. Mistaken identity happens a lot actually in these chases because police are on edge and more apt to error on the side of being wrong that right when it comes to collecting the escapees.

Not to mention it allows for terrible loopholes to allow for police officers to become legal executioners. All a police officer has to do is "let" a convicted criminal go running away from them and then just fire away and claim they were escaping. Ever seen Shawshank redemption?

Being on the run doesn't mean they are a clear and present danger at the moment at all either. There is a reason we have a Constitution, a legal system, and due process. But hey, maybe you'd like it next time if police just shoot first and question later if they mistake you for a convicted felon and decide to fire upon you in the back because of it.

 

[cabri]

Sweat was already PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED of a Felony
Therefore the second half will aply

"Article 35 of the (New York) penal law permits you to use deadly physical force to stop a fleeing felon who is either charged with a felony or convicted of a felony,"

Probable cause has to be because the person is visually carrying a weapon, has recently hurt someone in their flight from police, or has verbalized their intent to hurt others in their attempts to thwart custody. It's pretty clear how that bar of probable cause should be met. Just because the person was previously convicted for a violent crime doesn't mean their current crime they are being chased for has anything to do with violence or lend credence to the fact the fleeing perp may commit more violence imminently to stay at large.

Ignoring that

• people were shot at while on the run
• had planned on killing the woman's husband
• had access to weapons

Did the LEO know that he was unarmed?
What he did know about Sweat:

• He was a escaped murder
• He was attempting to flee
• The above info

Has Sweat escaped, what additional damage was he capable of.

 

[HumblePie]

Sweat was already PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED of a Felony
Therefore the second half will aply




Ignoring that

• people were shot at while on the run
• had planned on killing the woman's husband
• had access to weapons

Did the LEO know that he was unarmed?
What he did know about Sweat:

• He was a escaped murder
• He was attempting to flee
• The above info

Has Sweat escaped, what additional damage was he capable of.

And the bad law is unConsitutional and such situations have already been ruled upon by SCOTUS.

The police at the time they are firing do not know 100% if the man they are shooting is the escaped convict they are looking for. This is why the law is wrong. Unless the person that is fleeing is presenting an imminent threat to someone else they are not allowed to shoot regardless of whatever local bad law they have on the books might say otherwise. It is that simple.

 

[Ns1]

And the bad law is unConsitutional and such situations have already been ruled upon by SCOTUS.

in your opinion.

 

[HumblePie]

in your opinion.

And SCOTUS. Hence the case link I provided earlier. The SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow for special circumstances upon which deadly force may be applied to a fleeing suspect beyond the imminent deadly threat part. If you have a problem with that take it up with them.

 

[Ns1]

And SCOTUS. Hence the case link I provided earlier. The SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow for special circumstances upon which deadly force may be applied to a fleeing suspect beyond the imminent deadly threat part. If you have a problem with that take it up with them.

And I've already posted where people disagree and their interpretation of why this is different than tennessee v garner (which is the case I presume you are referring to)

Thus, my original comment to you - these are great arguments you're making, I can't wait to hear how they play out in court.

 

[HumblePie]

And I've already posted where people disagree and their interpretation of why this is different than tennessee v garner (which is the case I presume you are referring to)

Thus, my original comment to you - these are great arguments you're making, I can't wait to hear how they play out in court.

Only if a family member, or do-gooder lawyer take up the challenge in this case will it see the light of court. Or until something else similar to this happens but instead of shooting the the actual convict they shoot someone else on mistaken identity.