(04-13-2015 11:58 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Tennessee v Garner 1985.

Did you even read the case?

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 not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "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."

Strike one. Breaking the law.
Strike two. Running from the law.
Strike three. Resisting arrest.

(04-13-2015 10:56 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Oh I'm sorry.. So by you and Fit's ideology next time a cop pulls me over, I should make a run for it huh.. That puts me in the right and them in the wrong?

Funny how when I said coddle them or make them do the work, you picked out coddle.. If a police officer says, stop you don't run, you stop... You two must have a problem with authority.

No one disagrees that he was in the wrong for running, and you keep going back to that like it's a pertinent argument. At this point, I think you're either trolling or just not even trying.

The problem I have isn't with punishing fleeing suspects, I fully support charging these suspects with the appropriate crime and prosecuting them for it, it's with police shooting them in the back. You see, summary execution isn't the punishment we should levy against someone who runs from the police, and it's certainly not the punishment prescribed in the legislation on the subject matter. It's really not a difficult concept.

I don't think shooting someone 8 times is right either.. But you and Fit seem to think it's fine to run from the police..

(04-13-2015 01:26 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:56 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Oh I'm sorry.. So by you and Fit's ideology next time a cop pulls me over, I should make a run for it huh.. That puts me in the right and them in the wrong?

Funny how when I said coddle them or make them do the work, you picked out coddle.. If a police officer says, stop you don't run, you stop... You two must have a problem with authority.

No one disagrees that he was in the wrong for running, and you keep going back to that like it's a pertinent argument. At this point, I think you're either trolling or just not even trying.

The problem I have isn't with punishing fleeing suspects, I fully support charging these suspects with the appropriate crime and prosecuting them for it, it's with police shooting them in the back. You see, summary execution isn't the punishment we should levy against someone who runs from the police, and it's certainly not the punishment prescribed in the legislation on the subject matter. It's really not a difficult concept.

I don't think shooting someone 8 times is right either.. But you and Fit seem to think it's fine to run from the police..

I've never said anything of the sort, provide a single quote or stop lying.

(04-13-2015 10:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Question.. Why is it ok to run from the police?

Same $hit that you see on cops except that they don't get shot.

But instead they get injured and receive salary while on the tax payers dime.

There has to be a way to make it less likely for a criminal to flee from a crime. Possible option are

1. Increase penalty $$$
2. Increase prison time
3. Cruel or unusual punishment (obviously lesser form)

(04-13-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Strike one. Breaking the law.
Strike two. Running from the law.
Strike three. Resisting arrest.

Even the cop admits that shooting wasn't necessary.

(04-13-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Strike one. Breaking the law.
Strike two. Running from the law.
Strike three. Resisting arrest.

These are the same crime, and not everyone arrested actually broke the law. You're really not thinking about this hard enough.

(04-13-2015 01:30 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Question.. Why is it ok to run from the police?

Same $hit that you see on cops except that they don't get shot.

But instead they get injured and receive salary while on the tax payers dime.

There has to be a way to make it less likely for a criminal to flee from a crime. Possible option are

1. Increase penalty $$$
2. Increase prison time
3. Cruel or unusual punishment (obviously lesser form)

Running from the police has always happened people, this isn't some new phenomena that is only occurring now. Chasing suspected criminals is part of the job requirement for police, since when was this not understood?

Resisting arrest and fleeing officers is already a crime, and it's already punished on a regular basis. I'm not sure I can say the same thing about officers undeservedly shooting fleeing suspects though.

(04-13-2015 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:26 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:56 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Oh I'm sorry.. So by you and Fit's ideology next time a cop pulls me over, I should make a run for it huh.. That puts me in the right and them in the wrong?

Funny how when I said coddle them or make them do the work, you picked out coddle.. If a police officer says, stop you don't run, you stop... You two must have a problem with authority.

No one disagrees that he was in the wrong for running, and you keep going back to that like it's a pertinent argument. At this point, I think you're either trolling or just not even trying.

The problem I have isn't with punishing fleeing suspects, I fully support charging these suspects with the appropriate crime and prosecuting them for it, it's with police shooting them in the back. You see, summary execution isn't the punishment we should levy against someone who runs from the police, and it's certainly not the punishment prescribed in the legislation on the subject matter. It's really not a difficult concept.

I don't think shooting someone 8 times is right either.. But you and Fit seem to think it's fine to run from the police..

I've never said anything of the sort, provide a single quote or stop lying.

You're absolutely correct you never said it, but you jumped on my balls for the statement made to Fit, who by the way has said it, so I figured you agreed with him..

(04-13-2015 01:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Strike one. Breaking the law.
Strike two. Running from the law.
Strike three. Resisting arrest.

These are the same crime, and not everyone arrested actually broke the law. You're really not thinking about this hard enough.

Maybe the same crime (in some states) but not physically the same act.

Quote:A deputy is heard telling Harris, "I need you to roll on your stomach." At about the same time, a woman is heard in the background saying, "Stop fighting."

Bottom line is that if this clown doesn't run and resist he's still alive. Got any quantifiable metrics to debunk that theory?

Data, you're still as dense as ever when it comes to common sense.

(04-13-2015 01:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Strike one. Breaking the law.
Strike two. Running from the law.
Strike three. Resisting arrest.

These are the same crime, and not everyone arrested actually broke the law. You're really not thinking about this hard enough.

Maybe the same crime but not physically the same act.

Quote:A deputy is heard telling Harris, "I need you to roll on your stomach." At about the same time, a woman is heard in the background saying, "Stop fighting."

Bottom line is that if this clown doesn't run and resist he's still alive. Got any quantifiable metrics to debunk that theory?

Data, you're still as dense as ever when it comes to common sense.

You sure about that? This man was following orders and it didn't end well for him.

Got any metrics which indicate you're more likely to get shot if you follow the cops orders?

It's important to show that this sort of mentality, that literally every encounter with a person could result in a shootout, leads to needless deaths of both police and suspects. We don't live in a militarized state, at least we're not supposed to.

We do live in a militarized state. People need to realize this.

The weapons and gear at the disposal of DOMESTIC agencies like the ATF, DEA, FBI....even the SSA, DHS, and others......quite scary.

(04-13-2015 02:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We do live in a militarized state. People need to realize this.

The weapons and gear at the disposal of DOMESTIC agencies like the ATF, DEA, FBI....even the SSA, DHS, and others......quite scary.

Maybe we should be addressing that militarization then, and not blaming a guys death because he doing what criminals have literally always done?

(04-13-2015 02:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We do live in a militarized state. People need to realize this.

The weapons and gear at the disposal of DOMESTIC agencies like the ATF, DEA, FBI....even the SSA, DHS, and others......quite scary.

Maybe we should be addressing that militarization then, and not blaming a guys death because he doing what criminals have literally always done?

I'm not defending this action. Cops are completely out of control in this country. They have a sense of entitlement and superiority while thinking they're untouchable. And maybe they're right.

(04-13-2015 11:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Nope, I disagree with you there. A police officer should only use deadly force when reasonably appropriate fear for either their own or others safety exists. An unarmed suspect running away from you don't meet that standard, and the officer himself knows it the second it happens. The same with the incident in Charleston as evidenced by the police officer moving the taser.

You're defending the police in situations where there is video/audio evidence of them immediately knowing they made a mistake.

In this particular case it seems to be a simple mistake by someone who maybe shouldn't have had a gun. 73?? I don't know about that one.

I'd also allow that just because you can't see a gun doesn't mean they don't have one... and just because they don't have one now doesn't mean they won't use one. I'd say that someone with a history of gun violence or a suspect in a violent crime should get far less 'leeway' than some random person pulled over for speeding.

and if you don't make running away from the police have serious consequences, why would a criminal EVER not run? Said differently, if there were potentially serious consequences for running, why would a law abiding citizen EVER run? It's a double edged sword.

(04-13-2015 01:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You sure about that? This man was following orders and it didn't end well for him.

You don't know why they were stopping him and that could easily have caused them to be 'on edge'... and in fairness, the guy DID turn around pretty quickly into his car to get 'something'. Of course many assume he was reaching for his license... but it just as easily could have been something else. No, not a good situation, but it's a whole lot easier to stand here watching a video and claim what a reasonable person should have done, and far more difficult when your life may actually be at risk.

It actually proves a point that lots of people like me want to make and that is that edgy cops aren't a good thing.

I would rather get shot than mistakenly kill someone.

(04-13-2015 01:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:58 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Tennessee v Garner 1985.

Did you even read the case?

MY RESPONSE IS BELOW:


You really seem to have zero intellect or have any type of reasoning beyond being a racist against Whitey!

Yes I did read the case and my and anyone with a inteelect or IQ above that of an "educator" in NM can use the logic that, if a person would assault an officer, that would give any officer the perception that the same perpetrator would be a danger to any other citizen.


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 not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "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."

(04-13-2015 02:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's important to show that this sort of mentality, that literally every encounter with a person could result in a shootout, leads to needless deaths of both police and suspects. We don't live in a militarized state, at least we're not supposed to.

OT but be careful for what you wish for or speak of. If this current administration gets what they want and Al Sharpton gets a FEDERALIZED POLICE..... then you will lose all freedoms. WELCOME TO A POLICE STATE!