Del City Police Officer Charged In Shooting Death Of Teen

[jwv]

It started in the car where there was a gun, it should have ended there.You cannot justify shooting some one running away and unarmed, they are no longer a threat.

 

[Mr10mm]

"minor traffic violation" After a 15 min chase.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

So based on your logic, if someone shoots and kills somebody, then drops the gun and runs, the police are not justified in shooting them as they flee because they are no longer armed and no longer a direct threat to the police officer ...

That is correct. That is what I was taught in CLEET.

 

[Werewolf]

So based on your logic, if someone shoots and kills somebody, then drops the gun and runs, the police are not justified in shooting them as they flee because they are no longer armed and no longer a direct threat to the police officer ...

That's not my judgement it is to the best of my knowledge the law in most states.

That said justified and the law are quite often at odds. though when it comes to the police I personally would prefer that they have to meet the same standard as a citizen does to use lethal force.

 

[Billybob]

The juror had voted in the previous rounds why did she refuse to continue? How do you refuse to vote and as the judge said "violate the oath of a juror" without being cited for contempt?

There's an interview with juror in first video,

Juror speaks after being kicked off jury that found Del City captain guilty of manslaughter

http://kfor.com/2013/11/26/juror-replaced-in-trial-of-del-city-captain-accused-of-manslaughter/

 

[jstaylor62]

That's not my judgement it is to the best of my knowledge the law in most states.

That said justified and the law are quite often at odds. though when it comes to the police I personally would prefer that they have to meet the same standard as a citizen does to use lethal force.

This case should have been protected by prior case law on shooting fleeing felons:

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape 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.

 

[1shott]

This case should have been protected by prior case law on shooting fleeing felons:

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape 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.

Which is what the officer testified to, that he did not know if the suspect had another weapon and felt the need to stop him.

IMO this was about race and nothing more, again, that's my opinion.

 

[Billybob]

Which is what the officer testified to, that he did not know if the suspect had another weapon and felt the need to stop him.

IMO this was about race and nothing more, again, that's my opinion.

That's what Irvin Box said before he was replaced as Capt. Harrison's attorney.


Okla. cop's attorney says race a factor in charges

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018054269_apusoklahomaofficerteenshot.html

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape 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.

I don't think he was able to prove that he had the probable cause needed to support the justification to shoot a fleeing suspect.

 

[MyMonkey]

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape 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.

I don't think he was able to prove that he had the probable cause needed to support the justification to shoot a fleeing suspect.

Bingo. And expert witnesses strung him up for poor judgment. Jury saw that as well it seems.