TCSO: Deputy shouldn't be charged because he confused his weapons (video)

[Dave70968]

The reason you can't find any links to even a half-assed news report that will tell you what was going down, is because not one single outlet gives a half ass about reporting all the relevant facts.

Relevant fact: he was not presenting a threat at the time he was shot.
Relevant fact: SCOTUS has ruled that authorities may not shoot someone simply for fleeing.

His prior bad acts are not relevant to the question of whether the shooting (or the intended tasering) was justified.

 

[firefighterguy]

a bit of OT ... but here's the latest video from a cop .. err creatively using his patrol car ...

What's that a 200,000 grain bullet in the form a car? Good aim. That guy doesn't give two flips and just takes him out.

 

[TenBears]

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results...osedDateH=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

He is Eric Courtney Harris

 

[Kyle78]

Sometimes you have to improvise. Guy was extremely dangerous.

 

[pow]

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results...osedDateH=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

He is Eric Courtney Harris

Take a look at the date on all of those charges. Certainly nothing there that say shoot on sight.

 

[TenBears]

Take a look at the date on all of those charges. Certainly nothing there that say shoot on sight.

I agree, just posted it for your reading pleasure.

 

[magna19]

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results...osedDateH=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

He is Eric Courtney Harris

And if you change his middle name to Cortney you get the 3 other felony/misdemeanor charges in Cleveland County and the one Felony charge in Oklahoma .

 

[TenBears]

I wonder how aggresive the DA will be in prosecuting a member of the group that provides their security. I bet it will be more about Harris being a felon. I predict no conviction if he agrees to buy the Sherrifs office three more vehicles.

 

[henschman]

My guess is that it will be plead down to misdemeanor negligent homicide, and he will get probation with a short deferred sentence.

 

[Glocktogo]

Ace_to_go. Very predictable responses. The crime would be the sale of guns.....that didn't happen. It almost did but it didn't. How do I know that? Because the guy broke n ran right before the crime.....that's on the video that the media showed. Also on the video was the crime of shooting a INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A COURT CITIZEN, who forfeited none of his right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

The oops my bad, way too old, omg i shot him im so sorry, shouldn't have been there reserve deputy has been charged and should be found guilty of committing a crime against a innocent citizen.

That's as much fact as anything you've said in this thread. People are getting tired of the apologist excuses your ilk spreads.....cops ain't getting the benefit of doubt like they used to. Why??? Because technology is tearing down the vaunted blue wall. Technology is forcing Leo's to draw a new thin blue line.

You know what? They're prosecuting him and I'm OK with that. He made a mistake with no malice aforethought and he'll be tried. I'm sure the S.O. will have to pay a big settlement. I wish that never happened. But stop acting like Harris was a model citizen. it's quite possible he ran because of the three strikes rule. He was a violent felon with multiple convictions and in an ideal world, probably wouldn't have been on the streets at all.

So I've tried to meet you halfway here. If you can't be reasonable, don't bother responding at all.

It's fairly easy to get beyond the journalism problem, the blue line thing is much more problematic.

Then why has almost no one in this thread done so?

I've got no problem debating and addressing the LE issues, but let's not turn a blind eye just because some people want to pretend Harris was in line for sainthood.

Every conflict has 2 sides. You are seeing one side and judging by that information. As Paul Harvey always talked about "the other side of the story"
I would like to have all of the information, not just a small piece of it, before I make a decision.

It is sad that he got shot, and it appears to have other problems. Before you are judge, jury, and executioner, you need to have the whole story!

I don't see how you can possibly say I'm only seeing one side? I'm implicitly stating that it was not a good shoot. I'm implicitly stating that this is a serious issue. I'm simply not ignoring the relevant fact that Harris WAS NOT AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER! Can no one in this thread concede that fact? Seriously?

Relevant fact: he was not presenting a threat at the time he was shot.
Relevant fact: SCOTUS has ruled that authorities may not shoot someone simply for fleeing.

His prior bad acts are not relevant to the question of whether the shooting (or the intended tasering) was justified.

Glad to see you feel there can be only one relevant fact when addressing a complex issue. Myopia will not die on your watch!

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results...osedDateH=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

He is Eric Courtney Harris

Finally! One person in this entire thread got the message!

Take a look at the date on all of those charges. Certainly nothing there that say shoot on sight.

No one ever said it did! Where did you read that he was subject to a shoot on site order? Hyperbole much?