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

[cabri]

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.

The word OR covers both patterns.

You are trying to mince words that will not fly;
both to the common person and the legal knowledge.

I would consider shooting at a person being violent.
I would consider the planning of a murder as being violent.

Maybe you have a different definition of what a violent felon means

 

[HumblePie]

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.

Verified how? Did he get his state issued ID off him? Draw some DNA from him from the road?

The police officer saw a person along the road that matched the description of David Sweat. It's really simple concept to understand. That doesn't make the person that matches the description or even look much alike David Sweat be David Sweat until verified.

 

[HumblePie]

The word OR covers both patterns.

You are trying to mince words that will not fly;
both to the common person and the legal knowledge.

I would consider shooting at a person being violent.
I would consider the planning of a murder as being violent.

Maybe you have a different definition of what a violent felon means

You do know this right?

 

[OutHouse]

Verified how? Did he get his state issued ID off him? Draw some DNA from him from the road?

The police officer saw a person along the road that matched the description of David Sweat. It's really simple concept to understand. That doesn't make the person that matches the description or even look much alike David Sweat be David Sweat until verified.

holy shit dude talk about being thick headed.

whats the point of your argument? it doesn't matter. The law was followed, no rights were violated, the trooper did his job and the bad guy is back in jail. win.

 

[Humpy]

The opinion seems to be the same wording.

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.

Up to a point, with the relevant in bold, it seems NY law allows for what happened. I'm not sure if 1st degree escape is what occurred as it was (maybe) not a violent escape.

Edit: I guess it was 1st degree because he was convicted.

To me that still leaves the matter of identification as a legit concern or the police can shoot up random blue pickup trucks and claim reasonable belief. I'm done narrating my curiosity for the day.

 

[HumblePie]

holy shit dude talk about being thick headed.

whats the point of your argument? it doesn't matter. No rights were violated, the trooper did his job and the bad guy is back in jail. win.

It's not thick headed. It's called jurisprudence. I do not like having cops randomly shooting at fleeing unarmed people that match descriptions because they feel like it. If you can't see how that can cause major societal problems I feel sorry for you.

 

[OutHouse]

It's not thick headed. It's called jurisprudence. I do not like having cops randomly shooting at fleeing unarmed people that match descriptions because they feel like it. If you can't see how that can cause major societal problems I feel sorry for you.

fail, your are the definition of thick headed. the cop didnt randomly pick some guy walking down the road and shoot him you numbskull. again the TROOPER SAW SWEAT WITH HIS OWN EYES AND ID HIM. FUCK ITS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

also Humpys post completely obliterates your argument, so you are free now to go watch reruns of Judge Wapner and enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

 

[HumblePie]

fail, your are the definition of thick headed. the cop didnt randomly pick some guy walking down the road and shoot him you numbskull. again the TROOPER SAW SWEAT WITH HIS OWN EYES AND ID HIM. FUCK ITS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

also Humpys post completely obliterates your argument, so you are free now to go watch reruns of Judge Wapner and enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

And spotting a random person that matches the description of David Sweat is NOT proper police identification verification procedure. It's not thick headed but what is. The person is a suspect that matches the description of David Sweat until properly identified.

Also, the law goes against what has been stated for what is appropriate use of deadly force by a fleeing suspect per the ruling of Tennessee v. Garner. I quoted and outlined that for you several times. No local state law trumps that ruling.

 

[Subyman]

It's not thick headed. It's called jurisprudence. I do not like having cops randomly shooting at fleeing unarmed people that match descriptions because they feel like it. If you can't see how that can cause major societal problems I feel sorry for you.

I don't either, but that's not what the law says. Your problem is that you are mingling your opinion with what the actual law allows the cops to do. It was a legal shoot unless the law goes to SCOTUS.

 

[Humpy]

also Humpys post completely obliterates your argument,

That wasn't my intent and I think HumblePie had already understood the NY law and moved on to the potentially over-riding Supreme Court decision. I was just curious if the cops were acting in line with at least their own state law.

I think that the extent of identification of the suspect before shooting them is still a huge issue even though it worked out in this case. With a thousand officers in the area and him being unarmed(?) and alone(?) shooting him was a bitch move IMO.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't either, but that's not what the law says. Your problem is that you are mingling your opinion with what the actual law allows the cops to do. It was a legal shoot unless the law goes to SCOTUS.

Scotus ruling on this issue was very clear and the opinions written by the in favor of the ruling are even clearer.

Which makes the law not legal.

On top of that, without proper verification of the identity of a suspect the NY that allows for use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect that isn't presenting themselves as an imminent threat to others is murky in its application at best.

This is a huge issue seeing as how David Sweat lived and if he feels like pushing may get the cop in hot water over the shooting because of the two above issues I stated.

As noted by others, there was thousands of police in the area and no one else around. There was no need to use deadly force to capture the suspect that turned out to be David Sweat. I don't like the idea of cops breaking the law to catch suspects of crimes.

 

[Ackmed]

Verified how? Did he get his state issued ID off him? Draw some DNA from him from the road?

The police officer saw a person along the road that matched the description of David Sweat. It's really simple concept to understand. That doesn't make the person that matches the description or even look much alike David Sweat be David Sweat until verified.

Verified by looking at his face? You don't think he knew what he looked like? That flyers went around, that in roll call or whatever they do that it was the main point? You're right, it is very easy to understand, you are the ONLY one who doesn't understand it. Do you notice that?

As noted by others, there was thousands of police in the area and no one else around. There was no need to use deadly force to capture the suspect that turned out to be David Sweat. I don't like the idea of cops breaking the law to catch suspects of crimes.

He was running into the woods, woods that were close to the Canadian border. He wasn't a suspect, he was a fleeing felon. You can try to twist words all you want, but that is the facts. Because one person hasn't escaped "thousands" of cops before? I simply cannot stomach any more ignorance and have to stop looking at your posts.

 

[Blanky]

I don't agree with the shooting. The cop had a verified sighting and could have brought hell upon this guy in no time at all. He wouldn't have gotten much further with helicopters, all roads shut off, etc.

Part of the problem is almost all NY cops are fat as ever living fuck (see all the pics recently for proof), so it's no surprise this guy couldn't' chase down a felon who'd been on the run for three weeks.

I'm not sure how the scotus ruling applies since he clearly wasn't an immediate threat to anyone (like that moment), but could have been near-term, say an hour from then if he found some civilian or something.

In any case, the state is never going to prosecute.

 

[HumblePie]

Verified by looking at his face? You don't think he knew what he looked like? That flyers went around, that in roll call or whatever they do that it was the main point? You're right, it is very easy to understand, you are the ONLY one who doesn't understand it. Do you notice that?


He was running into the woods, woods that were close to the Canadian border. He wasn't a suspect, he was a fleeing felon. You can try to twist words all you want, but that is the facts. Because one person hasn't escaped "thousands" of cops before? I simply cannot stomach any more ignorance and have to stop looking at your posts.

Uhh, no. Several people have agreed with me on the verification issue in this thread. Everyone in this thread and others agree you are a class A troll though.

Looking at fliers just helps an officer know what to look for, but visual inspection from a distance of a person that may look like the person of interest they are after is NOT LEGAL VERIFICATION. I do not know how you cannot comprehend this simple fact. The person spotted at the time of the shoot is by technical legal definition a suspect or person of interest. Until verification of identity takes places, which by legal bar is more than a passing glance at someone on a roadway, the person is protected by 4th amendment rights. It is not twisting words but how the legal system is setup. If you have a problem with it that's your issue.

 

[Blanky]

Uhh, no. Several people have agreed with me on the verification issue in this thread. Everyone in this thread and others agree you are a class A troll though.

Looking at fliers just helps an officer know what to look for, but visual inspection from a distance of a person that may look like the person of interest they are after is NOT LEGAL VERIFICATION. I do not know how you cannot comprehend this simple fact. The person spotted at the time of the shoot is by technical legal definition a suspect or person of interest. Until verification of identity takes places, which by legal bar is more than a passing glance at someone on a roadway, the person is protected by 4th amendment rights. It is not twisting words but how the legal system is setup. If you have a problem with it that's your issue.

It would have been a really bad day for a guy who looked like this dude to decide he was in a screw the police mood and not follow orders and decide to run. Unlikely, though, and he did end up shooting the right guy, but certainly there is a risk.

 

[railer]

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.

It gets discussed because 3 or 4 guys on this forum think that "da gummint is out ta git us", and they will not be swayed by any fact, logic or reason to the contrary. They've moved on from being 9/11 truthers, and are now anti-cop truthers, but the mentality remains the same.

NYS law clearly states that fleeing felons may be shot. If you don't like that law, then move to NYS and get the law changed. And good luck with that BTW, as most sane people probably think it's a pretty good law. Otherwise, continue to squeal and cry on the internet as you have been doing, accomplishing nothing. Good luck.

 

[Ns1]

Scotus ruling on this issue was very clear and the opinions written by the in favor of the ruling are even clearer.

Which makes the law not legal.

definition of posing a threat is not clear.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.

Wow, so between the "privilege to live" and the above comment, Ackmed admits his true feelings.....no wonder he supports police executing anyone accused of a crime. Except other cops of course, they are awesome so get a free pass to whatever they want.

I guess he believes in the whole "Judge Dredd" concept. Too bad that the US justice system is not based on his thoughts. Screw the law, screw constiutional rights to a trial, just kill him and go have a beer. Ackmed must be a true patriot to take this hardship upon himself and support execution of anyone he thinks committed a crime.

 

[HumblePie]

definition of posing a threat is not clear.

There are legal definitions for the purpose of what constitutes posing a threat. That is why it is reference in such a way. Most legal references are found under the uses of deadly force general category for the state.

 

[Ns1]

There are legal definitions for the purpose of what constitutes posing a threat. That is why it is reference in such a way. Most legal references are found under the uses of deadly force general category for the state.

Remind me what that looks like in NY state.

 

[cabri]

Few miles from the Canadian border in wooded area.

Helos would only be of use to transport in that terrain from one clearing to another.

If Sweat got back into the woods he would have been gone before manpower/dogs arrived. It would be unwise for the trooper to chase him. There was no info as to Sweat being armed.

The area is not similar to urban tracking.
50 meters and there is no trace.

 

[Howard]

It is a privilege to live, not a right.

I trust that you are pro-choice, as well as retarded.