- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 28,765
- Reaction score
- 25,959
Law THE POLICE SHOOTING/USE OF FORCE MEGATHREAD: discussions to determine if justified or not
- Thread starter nhbbear
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
No, not to my knowledge. this is a completely different thread that I made after speaking to a mod who assured me it wouldn’t get merged and could remain. But look below at lifeless sheep, this is the most I get or the post above that one that asks “well, what about this one” that likely has to do with a bad cop.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Yet again, pissy little passive aggressive comments but nothing to back it up with in regard to this thread. If you don’t want to read my entire posts, then watch the video and comment. Hell, I could even draw a picture in crayon for you.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Dude, seriously? This is a litmus test? I will get to that in a moment. But this is exactly what I said would happen itt. Instead of discussing the actual cases itt that are heavily politicized, protested, and litigated, you drag this shit in here.
As for this case, this is absolutely disgusting and is in no way police work or representative of real police work. The issue is elsewhere and this guy is focused on a neighbor that had nothing to do with the call. The caller even tells him that, and instead of dealing with the actual problem, he makes his own by harassing, assaulting, and committing battery on an innocent citizen because he dared to defy that cop by not bowing down to him. He committed no crime-nothing to even speak to him about. It’s not even disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Dude just wanted to go about his day and tried to walk away. I couldn’t understand a word he said, but it really doesn’t matter because he should not have been questioned, spoken to since he stated he didn’t know what was going on, and certainly should have been tasered. Meanwhile, you have the actual call that is not being handled. That is battery and he should have been charged and one million percent fired. Absolutely disgusting.
And this is in no way a litmus test because I can’t imagine any cop I have ever worked with thinking this would be ok.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2015
- Messages
- 15,299
- Reaction score
- 15,069
My stance has been clear and applies to all cases in the thread. This was litigated. It is polarizing and controversial.
Obviously many cops outside of the "cops you worked with" thought this was ok. Did you miss the part about him not being charged & not being fired?
To me this is no different than some of the ones you posted. Man not breaking the law getting falsely accused of being a suspect simply due to a "black male" discrimination or a cop trying to abuse power.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,508
- Reaction score
- 15,449
- A couple of years ago, a dude was pointing a gun at random people and cars, one of those people at the car drove around and detened the guy. Was a cop, the guy pointing the gun was a cocked cop too, but was a fake airsoft gun!
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
- Messages
- 24,705
- Reaction score
- 23,133
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Ok, fair enough. It was litigated. The cops on his department didn’t think he did something wrong. I don’t recall seeing where this took place, but it seems like small town fuckery to me. I simply can’t fathom how he wasn’t fired and charged.
Not being stereotypical here, or in anyway defending him, but maybe he thought he was being sly and uncovering some fuckery of his own, but a trick black males like to play is they will wear multiple shirts and listen to scanners. When they hear over the scanner “black male, red T-shirt “(ours was a mostly blood territory city) or “black male, white t-shirt” they would change to the next layer of clothing, or everyone is wearing the same fucking colors. It’s harder to single them out of the crowd. You would find shirts in yards, in the garbage can, etc. they also liked to hide drugs in the garbage can and reach in and grab some as they needed it. Boy, it used to piss them off when we would roll up on them, get out to the “I didn’t do shits” and just reach in the garbage can and remove a stash of drugs. Almost got someone killed one time when I reached in and pulled out 96 grams of crack. You could tell which one it was because of the look of fear on his face as I was reaching in. He later got beat to a pulp and had a broken arm. It didn’t take us long to realize that long after he had his cast off, he was still wearing it to hide drugs in.
Regardless, some absolute shit police work and flexing of some ego muscles. Pathetic
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2015
- Messages
- 15,299
- Reaction score
- 15,069
I'm sure he thought of all kinds of crazy & unhinged thoughts like that to do something so repulsive to an innocent man on his own property.
They don't believe the description, and use it as an unlimited free pass to infringe on any black male they cross paths with. Then if they do see a black male that fits the description its magically viable again. Profiling at its finest.
Scary enough to think like that initially, but to then double down on it after the callers told him, "he had nothing to do with it."
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Ok, you actually brought me a good and interesting case. Thank you for providing a name so i could find it. It has not been decided yet, which means we will have to wait. It’s weird because he waived a jury trial, leaving his fate to judge, but it says they picked a jury on Nov 2?
My first thoughts, holy shit does this case have an awful lot of unfortunate names involved that is probably why this video is censored. The shooting is not graphic at all. The trooper’s name is Anthony Nigro, pronounced Nig-ro. This is also the name of a convicted
phile in the same general area of mark Anthony Huber. The police commissioner’s name is Anthony nigerelli. Lots of Anthony’s and names that should be censored. The “victim” is Huber, which we know from rittenhouse is an unlucky name. So, here are my thoughts, and I have quite a few. First off, I will say that there has been little media coverage outside local news and if Huber were black, this would be so much bigger.
Second, this shooting is justified under the fourth amendment, in particular graham v Connor and especially tn v garner. Huber is driving erratically. Not that serious of an offense. Of fact, I likely would have called one of my officers off of that pursuit UNLESS he was driving so dangerously that I thought he might kill someone, but simply chasing someone driving erratically is more dangerous to the public than they are likely to be without the chase.
The cases of graham and garner apply like this: graham covers the suspect’s actions of actively fleeing and directly putting the officer at risk of death or serious harm. It also applies because the officer believed that because of the suspects actions, his life was immediately in danger, thus the officer feared for his life and believed the only way to stop the threat was to use lethal force. The difference between deadly force and lethal force are as follows-deadly force is any force that the possible outcome is serious injury and/or death. Lethal force is any force in which the expected outcome is death. This is actually very important to this case, as I believe that hubers actions amounted to at the least, deadly force and the officer can use equal force or one step above the force of the suspect.
Garner covers the shooting of a fleeing suspect in the terms of legality. Garner is applicable because hubers actions were at the time of the shooting, directly threatening the life of the trooper and the public as he was reversing at a high rate of speed. Also, prior to the shooting, Huber is reaching around his side, which would make me think if I were the officer, that he was reaching for a weapon based upon my training and knowledge of suspect behavior.
Why do I believe the trooper’s or public’s life was in jeopardy? While I never like to see an officer reach into a vehicle, it was hubers response of quickly reversing the vehicle, trapping the officers arm in the car which put him at risk, at that moment in time, of being either dragged or run over. Either could cause either serious injury or death. I believe lesser levels of force would be ineffective and that will be the argument that nigro makes. Huber had on a thick jacket and a taser would not be effective in this case. Also, if it did somehow work, Huber loses control of his vehicle. Same with pepper spray. Nigro tried to use lesser levels of force right up the ladder. His presence as a uniformed law enforcement officer, his visual signals to pull over and stop Huber, his verbal commands for Huber to get out of the vehicle, his grabbing of Huber is the next level and finally, his pointing the gun at Huber is the threat of lethal force. Any one of those lesser uses of force would signal the average person to stop and follow orders.
Another area where graham v Connor applies is called the “totality of the circumstances” in which the whole event must be viewed from the objective eyes of a “rational police officer” and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It also must be looked at from Nigro’s frame of mind at that moment and using his training and experience. The prosecution will likely rely on expert witnesses and the department’s policies. First, the expert witnesses will say that Nigro’s actions of reaching the car and grabbing Huber go against training and the best practices of law enforcement. They will also likely have a police officer from that department talk about their pursuit policies, the use of force policy, and specifically, the policies relating to shooting at a moving vehicle. I don’t believe that the policy violations will have an effect because violations of policy are internal matters and not subject to criminal law for violating them. They will bring in the expert witnesses and maybe a department use of force instructor to testify about the officers training and his instructions on what to do and what not to do. This will be the more effective avenue to pursue imeo-in my expert opinion, which I actually have. However, all of this is trumped by Nigro being in a very tense and dangerous situation where clear thinking is not always apparent when adrenaline and fear are at play. Again, Nigro’s frame of mind is the most important aspect here.
Finally, the family will get a settlement or would win a lawsuit because of the violations of policy and if this goes against the officers training. But this will happen after the trial law they already have a winner, but if he is convicted, it will equal more money.
I looked up the video, posted my thoughts, then looked for the trial outcome and found this.
https://www.wivb.com/news/local-new...am-video-of-trooper-involved-deadly-shooting/
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Yeah, I forgot to mention that in this post, but did in my initial reaction. But the most important aspect that I think you improperly applying this to all officers, which is not the case. This officer is a total asshat and almost every other officer would leave this guy alone once the caller told him this was not the guy, but this asshole wouldn’t let the perceived disrespect slide. Let’s say it was me. If I made a mistake like initially thinking this was the guy, but was then told it was the other guy, I am immediately apologizing to this guy and then going to speak to the caller and the actual suspect. Then, after inclear the other call, I am going back to that gentleman’s house ti apologize again if he will accept it and i will try to explain my side of things-that is if his dog is away soni can try to speak to him. If he doesn’t wish to speak to me, i would be embarrassed and would feel like i dropped the ball because I couldn’t smooth things over, but he would be within his rights if he didn’t wish to speak to me. I am at least apologizing loudly to the subject so his neighbors hear as well ti help him save face. That is the most important thing that this officer didn’t do-he did not focus on why he was called in the first place-leaving the initial call unattended. What if the other call was domestic violence and here this dick is fucking with this guy over absolutely nothing? Second, let’s say that this guy did actually do something illegal-let’s say he actually fit the description and the officer gave him commands that he did not follow, which we might consider obstruction of justice. Again, this isn’t the case, but let’s say it was. Then, after I take care of the actual call, I can revisit this situation and either get an explanation, explain my side of things, or possibly issue a ticket or an arrest, or even a summons by mail. But that’s after the other call is completed and it would have to be pretty bad for me to attempt to do this.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Ok, another “well, what about this one case?” I have two brief questions followed by my thoughts. First, what is the reason he approached the car? If it’s simply trespassing or does he have some report of other criminal activity involving that vehicle and those subjects? Like, was there actually a call there possibly involving someone with a gun or was he driving by and saw them and stopped?
Second question, as she drove away, was the officer in danger of being run over? If not, there is no way this is justified. At most, he would have her possibly on charges of trespassing, obstruction, and maybe-depending on the charges against Jesus, aiding and abetting a fugitive-especially after he told her that he had a warrant. Those are not serious crimes and not worth a pursuit or use of force unless his life is in danger by her pulling away or Jesus was a serious threat to be allowed to get away. I didn’t see a video, but if he was an aggressive dick, I also have an issue with that as I was almost always respectful of people I served.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
- Messages
- 24,705
- Reaction score
- 23,133
Not only was he an aggressive dick, but he shot her while being in no danger of being struck by the vehicle.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Yeah, I still feel the same way. He’s not at risk, it is not justified. Back the fuck off and get warrants for her later-not that she or Jesus will submit then, but you will get them eventually. But some cops or people in general can not stand to be challenged or defied in any way, shape, or form. This applies to cops, karens, politicians, and even criminals who are really bad because they are so quick to resort to violence and the system coddles them-but cops that act this way can sometimes be more dangerous because they can take away your freedoms or your life. Criminals can only take your property or your life or lives of your family. Now given the choice, I would rather deal with them in this order karens, cops, then criminals-but still, this is not a good attitude in a cop and not one I support. To be a cop, you have to have a thick skin-almost impenetrable-and this includes insulating yourself from everything from insults and disrespect to hardeningnyoirself to handle all the trauma you see on a regular basis. But it’s ok to lose it on occasion in the latter, but not the former
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
- Messages
- 24,705
- Reaction score
- 23,133
What do you make of the cop swearing? And what was the point of drawing the weapon? She pulled away slowly and the cop was never in the path of the vehicle. This is reminiscent of that school safety officer who shot the girl and ended up charged with murder.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2015
- Messages
- 15,299
- Reaction score
- 15,069
I've mentioned it before, I'm not saying "ALL." I'm saying "TOO MANY." That's always been my assessment & my philosophy on these crimes. That's the only quantification that applies or is realistic to people who believe there is a problem.
That is kind of the difference. Most police officers who will even condemn the bad acts when asked, won't come out and say it happens too much. Or that its part of the lost trust issue in many of the communities they are supposed to serve.
It's not rational to blanket speak for a giant diverse group of people that get special treatment in some ways. We can fill threads about unlimited incidents like this to where it's a legit known issue.
As mentioned many times before, "the most or all cops argument" is not my or others 1st hand experience with police when getting accused of random crimes or harassed on many occasions.
Its not an anomaly. It happens frequently.
Look you, yourself are shocked that his department didn't fire him. That's indication of a much larger more wide spread issue. That's a whole department that is creating a culture from the top down.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
I don’t think much of officers that speak like that, but it is required occasionally-not in this case. I had to explain my “cop mouth” to my wife once and I told her some people don’t respond to please or thank you.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 34,155
- Reaction score
- 22,277
I have said it many times, I am not against police officers like this to be fired AND charged. My issue is when to appease the violent criminals, blm, politicians, and social media-they charge cops like they did with rashard brooks, who(on page 1, I believe) fought with police, stole a taser, and pointed it at a cop and tried to shoot him with it. I am against and hate when cities award criminal’s families with large settlements, rewarding them for having a shitbag criminal for a family member and punishes law enforcement nationwide for making absolutely necessary uses of force (see alton sterling-a
phile with a gun). I am against awarding the families with large settlements for a burdensome scumbag criminal family member (see well pretty much everyone in this thread, but also, Floyd’s family with 27 million dollars for someone that would have overdosed and died or spent life in prison at some point. I am against making martyrs out of people like everyone itt and floyd, whom people would step over while he lay dying if it were anyone other than a cop. I am against coddling and excusing criminals and their behavior because they belong to a certain group that disproportionately commits crime, especially violent crimes-obviously, I am referring to black males and not in a racist or stereotypical fashion, but in a purely numerical standpoint. I al against bail reform for violent, repeat offenders and progressive DAs. As for cops, one cop like this is too much. One excusal and quick settlement is too much. I am sick of police unions/departments/other officers protecting bad cops and qualified immunity for clearly criminal actions by police officers, but because they stood on one foot(which had never been officially determined to be wrong) as they violated someone’s rights by shoving a plunger up their ass (abner louima-nypd). And I am sick of the fewer than perceived disrespectful and arrogant police officers that have an us/them mentality. They can all get fucked with a flaming pineapple like abner Louima did.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 29,958
- Reaction score
- 41,483
Every case that I have mentioned was interesting.
I know that, it's why I asked if you think he will be convicted.
Weird that you hate when race is brought up in these situations, but you feel the need to bring race up right off the bat.
Here is a little more on this aspect from a Buffalo news article:
The Attorney General’s Office called policing experts to testify before the grand jury – two sergeants with the State Police and a former police officer-turned professor, according to court documents.
Based on their testimony, Nigro disregarded risks and his actions were “a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable officer would observe in this situation,” prosecutors said in court papers.
Among them, according to court documents:
- A state police sergeant twice over the police radio called for troopers to terminate their pursuit of Huber. After the first command, Nigro and another trooper continued to follow Huber’s Chevrolet Malibu.
Another sergeant called Nigro on his cellphone and Nigro told him he wasn’t actively pursuing Huber, but could see his vehicle in traffic. The sergeant “instructed Trooper Nigro to maintain a visual of Huber.”
- Nigro never provided updates on his location.
- Nigro parked his patrol car in front of Huber’s vehicle, even though training calls for police to position their vehicle behind a suspect.
- Nigro, who was engaged in a “high risk/felony stop,” didn’t call for backup before approaching Huber’s car.
- Nigro also didn’t have a plan before he approached the vehicle, didn’t wait for backup before trying to pull Huber out of the car and didn’t holster his gun before going “hands on” with a person.
After reading all of that I do agree with you saying that the family will get a settlement. I also doubt the cop will be convicted of manslaughter. IMO another case where killing the guy could have been avoided if the cop made better decisions, but Huber fucked around enough to where the cop won't get convicted of a crime. I do think the cop should probably be fired though.
