[Video] Black teen shot in the back by police

I did.

I was under the impression that an "immediate threat" was interpreted to mean that he immediately intended harm to the nearby community, and not that we were presuming simply because he has already committed a crime that exposes the community to such a dangerous threat that he will repeat this offense in the future. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it also strikes me as problematically precursive thinking.

Nevertheless, if our law has determined that it's okay to kill these sorts of violent criminal on sight, regardless of whether they're literally threatening an officer or a citizen, immediately (and I use that term in its proper sense), then I'll allay my concern.

I don't care about seeing violent thieves maimed or killed so long as it conforms to our democratic laws.


It does not have to be an immediate “like right now” threat. If the suspect is fleeing from a violent felony(not shoplifting third offense or forging a check), which burglary is considered a violent felony, and their escape poses a threat-ie this armed suspect could possibly break into more houses or carjack someone to get away, then the use of deadly force is authorized.

Only because this kid is black, are we even seeing this. The court will have no issue with the use of force.

And people are making a big deal over the gun being found in his pants. But the cop knew he had a gun, so he obviously saw it, and even claims that it was pointed at him as he jumped out of the window and before he jumped the fence. He could have put the gun in his pants to climb the fence.
 
You’re making part of this up...

Officer actually shot twice first. after the suspect was over the fence he yelled out “he has a gun”... then he shot twice again and hit him in the back..

You have a problem watching a video and then interpreting what happened???

What part am I making up, exactly? He did yell that he had a gun before he shot him. That is correct. He fired two shots just before that as well, probably did not have time to warn the other cops at that point.

Again, so tell me where i am wrong
 
I don't really feel that way. I don't think it's reasonable for police to not pursue people caught committing dangerous crimes because it could lead to a confrontation.

I do think there is a decent probability in this case that the officer didn't actually see a gun and fired at the fleeing suspect and got lucky that he was carrying, but he was carrying so fuck him.

Kind of akin to how someone can sucker punch someone and they're unhurt and they get a misdemeanor charge and someone else can sucker punch with the same intent and the person drops and hits their head and dies.

Unlucky for puncher # 2 but when you play scumbag roulette sometimes you roll 00.
I did not say that the police should be forced to desist pursuit. I'm saying that the pursuit-- while still shouldered as a responsibility by the felon in my eyes, certainly-- introduces a new condition to the equation.

The reform I'm saying should be considered is the precedent established by the law nhbbear cited.
It does not have to be an immediate “like right now” threat. If the suspect is fleeing from a violent felony(not shoplifting third offense or forging a check), which burglary is considered a violent felony, and their escape poses a threat-ie this armed suspect could possibly break into more houses or carjack someone to get away, then the use of deadly force is authorized.

Only because this kid is black, are we even seeing this. The court will have no issue with the use of force.

And people are making a big deal over the gun being found in his pants. But the cop knew he had a gun, so he obviously saw it, and even claims that it was pointed at him as he jumped out of the window and before he jumped the fence. He could have put the gun in his pants to climb the fence.
Yes, I was able to infer that from your post. That's what I was pondering.

This is murkier water for me. I don't think the police should be forced to break off pursuit, but I also don't think that the fleeing criminal (fleeing itself being a felony) should necessarily sacrifice mortal sanctity simply by virtue of the fact that he's fleeing. I can't summon a rational argument against the possibility that he might carjack someone, or even take a hostage, but at the same time, we're predicating this on the presumption the criminal is armed prior to this being established as a certainty.

The reason this concerns me is the precedent it sets. After all, in this case, the criminal had a gun, and I see no reason to question this fact. But what if he didn't? What if he was Stephon, and what if even the first 2 bullets that hit Stephon were also in the back? Suddenly we reach a radically different evaluation of the officer's actions retrospectively when that retrospective had no bearing on the officer's judgment and actions prior to confirming the presence of the weapon. There was no difference in the belief of intent of the same officer in these two different scenarios.

Why is this a problem?

Well, because now, all an officer has to do is yell, "Gun!", without a reasonable standard of proof, only suspicion, and he can be retroactively exculpated for shooting anyone. A crooked cop could misconstrue with the lie that he believed the perpetrator had a gun.

Alternatively, officers who genuinely believed a perpetrator had a gun, when the perpetrator did not, are suddenly censured or charged by virtue of the result when in spirit they didn't comport themselves with an intention any different than the officers who turned out to be correct-- even if they had more cause to justify their suspicion than officers who were correct (ex. an unarmed assailant who is fleeing waves an object like a gun at them to give them caution as they pursue, buying precious seconds as they have to more cautiously clear corners, or to provoke a suicide-by-cop as his chances of escape diminish...these sorts of criminals are often act irrationally in these fashions).

It also adds a stiff incentive to plant evidence.

As always, generally speaking, my sympathies lie with our police, as I believe them to signify and embody not only the law, but also the will of the people and the integrity of public safety, but perhaps these legal precedents are part of the reason we have arrived at the problematic current environment we inhabit.
 
Wow. I'd hate to know how many unarmed suspects they shot before body cameras. This spaz was out for blood.
 
Whats with all the he had a gun stuff? I saw no gun in that video. After the fact coulda been a "drop gun" cops carry to immunize themselves.
 
Shouldn't have had a gun. Everyone knows it's illegal and punishable by death for a black person to own a gun.

Also, shouldn't have ran from the cops. Everyone knows it's punishable by death for a black person to run from the cops.

Also, shouldn't have committed burglary. Everyone knows it's punishable by death for a black person to burgle.

Psh, rookie. The guy being shot in the back, that is.

I missed you Nicky. Welcome home.
 
Back
Top