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

[Subyman]

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.

So are you just speaking your opinion or do you have law to back you up? Others have already stated the law. As it stands, the police have the power unless that law goes to SCOTUS.

Lastly, if the officer "misidentifies" the person and shoots a normal civilian without just cause, then they will be punished as such. That does not affect this law at all. It is up to the cop to properly identify the subject.

 

[Ackmed]

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.

I am aware of that. And of course everyone took what I said out of context, not including what else I said. Of course everyone has the right to life, as long as they do not commit crimes punishable by death. These two were sentenced life in prison. For one, only 31 states have the death penalty, it is much cheaper to forgo the murder trial and plea out, it gives the family of the deceased instant gratification and not a long trial that puts undue stress on them. The bad side is that tax payers have to foot the bill for their expenses, and it makes the over population problem in prisons even worse. That does not mean that the crime of murder (that they committed) isn't punishable by death and that they did forfeit their right to live. It simply means more times than not that they plead down to a lower sentence for admitting guilt. If you look at the federal statute for punishment of death there are a couple dozen crimes that fit the bill. So again, we do not have the absolute right to life, it is a privilege. We can all forfeit that right by committing a crime to heinous that the law says you deserve to die. Depending on the individual state of course, as I said only 31 states currently have it. Personally I think it should be more swift and used more. The fact is that he was ID's, was a fleeing felon and the cop had the right (and duty I would say) to stop him at almost any cost. Even in a good shot, of a total scum bag, people still jump on the anti-cop bandwagon.

Also, he was shot in the torso, not the back as the title indicates. But the cop haters always have to make things worse than they are to further their agenda.

 

[HumblePie]

So are you just speaking your opinion or do you have law to back you up? Others have already stated the law. As it stands, the police have the power unless that law goes to SCOTUS.

Lastly, if the officer "misidentifies" the person and shoots a normal civilian without just cause, then they will be punished as such. That does not affect this law at all. It is up to the cop to properly identify the subject.

Are you really this obtuse on purpose?

Let's go at this with another angle shall we?

January 1, 1973: Maryland becomes the first state to pass legislation that bans same sex-marriage in the state.

This is a law that has stood for over 40 years. Does the fact the law stood for so longer make it any more Constitutional or legal that it really was? In all that time SCOTUS never ruled upon it, but not that it has there is a reason the law is not Constitutional. Which doesn't mean some ass-hat politician is right now thinking up ways to enact legislation that skirts the ruling somehow in looking for a loophole. Look at how states like Texas have been trying to do whatever they can to stop people from having abortions despite the legality of it being allowed by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS ruled on when it is appropriate to use deadly force upon a fleeing suspect and when it is not. It has also been determined that there is ZERO chance to make a 100% identification match about a suspect until they are apprehended and in custody.

It is one thing if the cops are watching a fleeing criminal as he is passing the walls of a prison for being a violent criminal that is escaping. They know the identity at that time of the person and can legally shoot. It's quite another to come upon someone walking along the road that takes off running when spotting the police and have an officer shoot them in the back as they are running.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

well then i guess cops cant speed or run redlights to apprehend a criminal...

your logic is so fail.

 

[cabri]

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.

Are you now arguing the law or the incident.

You started on the incident and have been shown to be wrong.

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.

The law is valid - it specifically addresses a PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED FELON

There is a difference between a SUSPECT and a KNOWN FELON.

the LEO in the area knew who to look for; they had accurate descriptions

 

[OutHouse]

Probable cause has to be because the person is visually carrying a weapon,

dude really, give it up. here ill post the SCOTUS rulling again.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated the standard in 1985: "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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent an escape,

it was a good shoot, just accept it.

 

[Subyman]

Are you really this obtuse on purpose?

Let's go at this with another angle shall we?

January 1, 1973: Maryland becomes the first state to pass legislation that bans same sex-marriage in the state.

This is a law that has stood for over 40 years. Does the fact the law stood for so longer make it any more Constitutional or legal that it really was? In all that time SCOTUS never ruled upon it, but not that it has there is a reason the law is not Constitutional. Which doesn't mean some ass-hat politician is right now thinking up ways to enact legislation that skirts the ruling somehow in looking for a loophole. Look at how states like Texas have been trying to do whatever they can to stop people from having abortions despite the legality of it being allowed by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS ruled on when it is appropriate to use deadly force upon a fleeing suspect and when it is not. It has also been determined that there is ZERO chance to make a 100% identification match about a suspect until they are apprehended and in custody.

It is one thing if the cops are watching a fleeing criminal as he is passing the walls of a prison for being a violent criminal that is escaping. They know the identity at that time of the person and can legally shoot. It's quite another to come upon someone walking along the road that takes off running when spotting the police and have an officer shoot them in the back as they are running.

There is no other angle. The law is on the books. The cops are abiding by the law on the books. Its up to the courts to decide on this specific law. As of right now, the law has not been challenged because it is still on the books. That's all there is to say about it.

 

[cabri]

SCOTUS ruled on when it is appropriate to use deadly force upon a fleeing suspect and when it is not. It has also been determined that there is ZERO chance to make a 100% identification match about a suspect until they are apprehended and in custody.

Link to the second sentence please

 

[OutHouse]

SCOTUS ruled on when it is appropriate to use deadly force upon a fleeing suspect

thats where you are getting this all fucked up. you dont know what the word suspect means.

Richard W. Matt and David sweat were not suspects. they were escaped felons, not some kids who stole candy from a 7-11.

It is one thing if the cops are watching a fleeing criminal as he is passing the walls of a prison for being a violent criminal that is escaping. They know the identity at that time of the person and can legally shoot. It's quite another to come upon someone walking along the road that takes off running when spotting the police and have an officer shoot them in the back as they are running.

The NY Trooper who shot sweat 100% knew it was Sweat, the trooper looked right at him, face to face. damn dude try to keep up.

 

[HumblePie]

thats where you are getting this all fucked up. Richard W. Matt and David sweat were not suspects. they were escaped felons, not some kids who stole candy from a 7-11.

also the NY Trooper who shot sweat 100% knew it was the trooper he looked right at him, face to face. damn dude try to keep up.

The person the officer saw at the time he shoot was a SUSPECT. He doesn't know 100% for certain the person he is shooting is the escape convict or not. It's a simple concept.

 

[HumblePie]

Are you now arguing the law or the incident.

You started on the incident and have been shown to be wrong.






The law is valid - it specifically addresses a PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED FELON

There is a difference between a SUSPECT and a KNOWN FELON.

the LEO in the area knew who to look for; they had accurate descriptions

THE PERSON BEING SHOT AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOT IS A SUSPECT!!! Identity isn't 100% known until detained. If the officer had caught sweat first, ascertained his identity, and then sweat ran again from the cop, that is one thing. That is not what happened. The cop suspected a person alongside the road was one of the escaped felons. When the person started running he fired. That is firing upon a suspected criminal and not a known convicted felon.

 

[cabri]

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck

But it must be a dog...

 

[HumblePie]

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck

But it must be a dog...

Like you've never been mistaken for someone else by someone else before? Or have never done it yourself? There is a reason there are procedures and laws in place for how the police identify suspects.

 

[OutHouse]

the person being shot at the time of the shoot is a suspect!!! Identity isn't 100% known until detained. If the officer had caught sweat first, ascertained his identity, and then sweat ran again from the cop, that is one thing. That is not what happened. The cop suspected a person alongside the road was one of the escaped felons. When the person started running he fired. That is firing upon a suspected criminal and not a known convicted felon.

the trooper saw him, the trooper knew it was him, the trooper identified him by seeing his face. There is no suspect in this.

it was a good shoot, get over it.

 

[OutHouse]

Like you've never been mistaken for someone else by someone else before? Or have never done it yourself? There is a reason there are procedures and laws in place for how the police identify suspects.

its 100% obvious you have no clue on what those procedures are. your amateur Monday morning arm chair critique is just that.

 

[OutHouse]

nevermind

 

[OutHouse]

Escaped felons can be shot fleeing. They can shoot them as they run away from the prison

Uhh no.

Post 53

It is one thing if the cops are watching a fleeing criminal as he is passing the walls of a prison for being a violent criminal that is escaping. They know the identity at that time of the person and can legally shoot

Damn dude you flip flop more than Al Gore.

 

[HumblePie]

the trooper saw him, the trooper knew it was him, the trooper identified him by seeing his face. There is no suspect in this.

Doesn't matter if the cop recognized a person that looks like the escaped convict. That person is a suspect until caught and reasonable identity made. Of which there are plenty of ways for that to happen.

http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3220/3220lect02a.htm

Oh and please read up on the actual ruling by Ten.v Garner. This is a bit easier to understand.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and 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. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.

 

[HumblePie]

Post 53



Damn dude you flip flop more than Al Gore.

No, because the person fleeing through the walls of a prison the identity of the person is known and the person is NOT a suspect. When coming upon someone on the side of the road that person is a SUSPECT. It's not flipflopping.

 

[Ns1]

No, because the person fleeing through the walls of a prison the identity of the person is known and the person is NOT a suspect. When coming upon someone on the side of the road that person is a SUSPECT. It's not flipflopping.

lol

"Suspect David Sweat allegedly escapes jail"

 

[Humpy]

The law is valid - it specifically addresses a PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED FELON

It does?

You previously quoted someones opinion of the law, not the law.

 

[cabri]

It does?

You previously quoted someones opinion of the law, not the law.

S 35.30
Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or
attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to
prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably
believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and
to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or in
self-defense or to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably
believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force; except that
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; or
(ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the
first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and
that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape
from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is
necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another
person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force.

The opinion seems to be the same wording.

 

[HumblePie]

The opinion seems to be the same wording.

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;

Bold the whole thing then and get the true law.

The person was a convicted felon which was why he was in prison. He was being sought not for the previous crime but for the crime of escaping a prison. The escape had not used violence as part of the act of escaping and as far as the police know there was no violence on part of the prisoners in their attempts to elude custody.

 

[HumblePie]

lol

"Suspect David Sweat allegedly escapes jail"

David Sweat escaped prison. A person spotted on the side of the road can be suspected of being David Sweat but until that identity is verified the person is a suspect and protected by the 4th.

 

[Ackmed]

Um... the cop verified Sweat's identity. Your whole argument that they can't ID someone until custody is silly and wrong. Others have pointed this out numerous times. Really sad.