Crime De’Von Bailey police shooting. Edit: settlement of 3 million reached.

I like to withhold solid conclusions until more is known.

One thing that factors into my thinking in the past few years is how the story is blown up, and how it's often found that it was in fact a good shoot.
 
Sounds like nothing of value was lost. I’d like to see more armed, violent criminals get shot.
 
Good. Fuck him. Touch a child you deserve to fucking get killed.
 
My question is if he's running and was shot in the back, how easy would it for him to turn and start shooting while the officers are running at him chasing him? is that a viable threat.
 
My question is if he's running and was shot in the back, how easy would it for him to turn and start shooting while the officers are running at him chasing him? is that a viable threat.

No, usually when they start running I stop shooting.
 
My question is if he's running and was shot in the back, how easy would it for him to turn and start shooting while the officers are running at him chasing him? is that a viable threat.
You have to wait until you’re shot
Assess the wound to see if it’s fatal
If it’s a mortal wound you are allowed to warn them you might shoot some day
Once shot again six times you may return fire but only at the quadriceps on the right leg
 
I'm just not a huge fan of cops shooting someone in the back and I general side with the police in a lot of shit.

If it all went down as reported, there is really nothing to question. He was armed and dangerous, and a threat to public safety. Those guys get lead if they run, so they can't harm anyone.
 
It's so easy to say the guy was a criminal and the shooting was justified but that's a slippery slope and for better or worse we must defend principle. Let the justice system sort it out, that's what it's there for... If the police felt they had to stop the guy before he tried to stop them or others and then an impartial investigation looks into it then so be it...
 
He was shot in the back while running. I would say at that point he wasnt a threat, it is an unjustified shooting. Is there any evidence that he was a threat at that point?

Armed and Dangerous is a threat. Police are charged with Public Safety, not just their own. If he was armed, a threat to the public, and there was no other way to stop him, the use of force they used is likely appropriate. Just because he is running away from the cops does not mean deadly use of force isn't justified.
 
Armed and Dangerous is a threat. Police are charged with Public Safety, not just their own. If he was armed, a threat to the public, and there was no other way to stop him, the use of force they used is likely appropriate. Just because he is running away from the cops does not mean deadly use of force isn't justified.

Finding the gun after they shot him, doesnt make it a justified shooting. If they were not able to identify him as a threat, at the time of the shooting, then it was a bad shooting. Police cant just kill someone for running away.
 
Finding the gun after they shot him, doesnt make it a justified shooting. If they were not able to identify him as a threat, at the time of the shooting, then it was a bad shooting. Police cant just kill someone for running away.
Not if he was just reported committing armed robbery.
 
video


looks fairly clear that he was shot from behind while running from the police. seems certain the guy is a criminal that needed to be dealt with, but i dont think this is considered proper use of deadly force.


Not sure how this reads legally but in terms of public safety, I think a criminal fleeing from the police with a gun in hand should be considered an active threat and neutralized with whatever force is necessary. If they got these things wrong about the guy then I’m happy to revisit my stance but until that happens I have no problems with the shooting.
 
Not sure how this reads legally but in terms of public safety, I think a criminal fleeing from the police with a gun in hand should be considered an active threat and neutralized with whatever force is necessary. If they got these things wrong about the guy then I’m happy to revisit my stance but until that happens I have no problems with the shooting.
i think i generally agree, if he indeed had a gun.

i havent read that much into the story. has it been confirmed he had a gun on him?
 
He was shot in the back while running. I would say at that point he wasnt a threat, it is an unjustified shooting. Is there any evidence that he was a threat at that point?

If he had a gun, he could have taken someone hostage. I'd rather police not give armed robbers fleeing the scene of a crime that opportunity.
 
Just like all the other cases. You put yourself in those situations, don’t complain about the results.
 
Not if he was just reported committing armed robbery.
From what I gathered, the police were only stopping to people that fit the description. At this point they cant be sure they committed a crime. The police also do not know if he had a gun at this point. If they never saw him with a gun, they can not call him a threat so shooting him in the back would be a bad shooting.
 
If he had a gun, he could have taken someone hostage. I'd rather police not give armed robbers fleeing the scene of a crime that opportunity.
All speculation, did the officers even know he had a gun at the time of the chase? At this point I'm not sure they did. If the never saw him with a gun they can call him a threat.
 
Same here. Running away, something nonlethal needs to be used to put them down IMO.
Police aren’t exececutioners, but sometimes they are.

I'm just not a huge fan of cops shooting someone in the back and I general side with the police in a lot of shit.
 
Back
Top