Man Tased flying his drone in State Park

[Braineack]

The majority of us are totally ignorant and merrily oblivious to it.........

agreed.

Like I could tell you there is a systemic problem with law enforcement shooting dogs (among other things) and you wouldnt believe me.

then I could give you over 50 news articles of police shooting dogs in 2014 alone and you'd be like: I'm not so merry nor ignorant anymore.

 

[snerd]

I've purposely not responded to cops shooting dogs, because one sumbeech did exactly that to my grandson's dog, right in front of my grandson!! Both he and my son were there, along with about 10 of the neighborhood kids! Dog was sauntering up, but it was a pit bull, so naturally he freaked and panicked. Pulled, shot, it bounced "off" the street, into the dog. Totally insane. Nothing was done about it, as all he had to say was he feared for his life. The kids were totally weirded out by watching him shooting and killing the dog right in front of them. You could see the look of astonishment and then fear and then confusion on their faces. This was all related to me by my son. Of course, the dog should have been on a leash, he had just darted out the back yard gate when my grandson opened it. Neighbor freaked and called cops. Dog was having a blast evading grandson trying to catch him, kids were helping too, they've all played with the dog before. Cop arrives, boom. Dog dead.

 

[AlanKlein]

It's a good thing the cop didn't grab his gun instead of his taser. Ooops. rat-a-tat-tat

 

[Tailgunner]

Yes, it does make you question the ranger's version of the accounts. Witnesses don't seem to claim he was running away, and he had time to bring the chopper down and argue about his ID and state he was leaving with his family in tow.

Exactly, the photo floating around shows the small copter next him after being tased laying down. The guy landed his copter and started walking away when he was tased. I was taught in my CHL class (conceal handgun license) that you couldn't shoot someone in the back while they was walking or running away. This is a gray area even for Law Enforcement, they can't just simply shoot someone in the back walking or running away...especially for flying some toy.

 

[Designer]

..you couldn't shoot someone in the back while they was walking or running away. This is a gray area even for Law Enforcement,..

Why is that a gray area?

Seems pretty much either black or white to me.

 

[Tailgunner]

..you couldn't shoot someone in the back while they was walking or running away. This is a gray area even for Law Enforcement,..

Why is that a gray area?

Seems pretty much either black or white to me.

Gray area is proudly the wrong words.

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.

 

[480sparky]

Gray area is proudly the wrong words.

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.

Sorry. You've been watching too many movies. No police officer is going to get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when they just up and shoot someone (even if said someone just committed murder) for the purpose of keeping them from getting away. Not no way, not no how. Running away poses ZERO THREAT, both to the officer and the public. And zero threat does not allow lethal force.

 

[407370]

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.

The difference in public perception of what police procedure should be in specific circumstances varies a lot in different countries. I despair at the thought of any country that shares your perceptions of when it is OK / NOT OK to shoot someone.

 

[Tailgunner]

Gray area is proudly the wrong words.

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.

Sorry. You've been watching too many movies. No police officer is going to get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when they just up and shoot someone (even if said someone just committed murder) for the purpose of keeping them from getting away. Not no way, not no how. Running away poses ZERO THREAT, both to the officer and the public. And zero threat does not allow lethal force.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight"

Example: Officer Wilson of the Ferguson MO police pursed Michael Brown, shot him, and was not charged. It happens.

 

[Tailgunner]

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.

The difference in public perception of what police procedure should be in specific circumstances varies a lot in different countries. I despair at the thought of any country that shares your perceptions of when it is OK / NOT OK to shoot someone.

People, is a Fleeing felon! The above mention is a suspect who has proven to be a deadly threat to others after killing one person. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled Officers can use deadly force on such fleeing felons.

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 forceto 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."

A civilian on the other hand can not.

 

[480sparky]

People, is a Fleeing felon! The above mention is a suspect who has proven to be a deadly threat to others after killing one person. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled Officers can use deadly force on such fleeing felons.

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 forceto 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."

Yea, the papers & newcasts are just chock-full of stories about deaths and injuries caused by felonious tourists flying 3" drones. So what's this guy gonna do? Threaten others with his 3" drone? Is flying a 3" drone now a felony?

 

[Braineack]

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.

Sorry. You've been watching too many movies. No police officer is going to get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when they just up and shoot someone (even if said someone just committed murder) for the purpose of keeping them from getting away. Not no way, not no how. Running away poses ZERO THREAT, both to the officer and the public. And zero threat does not allow lethal force.

You haven't read enough news.

DAs rarely pursue charges against officers and if/when they do, they are able to manipulate Grand Juries to exonerate the officer, not indict. And that's typically only after the police investigate themselves if they did anything wrong.

For example: Let's say I was arrested for shooting someone. A DA would present all the evidence in the world to show a grand jury that there is reason to indict me and go to trial. The would present facts in a way that would show my guilt/malice, they'd bring up any history I have of violence, suggest a motive, basically drag my name through mud in order to get the indictment.

When it's an officer of the law, they present only the evidence needed in order to show a grand jury there was no crime. Some might refer to it as a dog and pony show. Then they have the support/pressure of the police union.

I've read a plethora of news stories in the last year or so where an officer shot someone unarmed or in the back and was never charged/punished for it.

Here's one:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

This happened last year, I don't believe any officer has yet to be charged with a crime after they investigated themselves and found they were justified in shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.

There is a wrongful death case pending for this shooting, but what happens is the officers involved have qualified immunity, so they can never really be held personally responsible for crimes they commit. Beyond that, they are always settled out of court, so lets say the family wins $6 million dollars, the only one that loses is the taxpayer and the city. The money doesn't even come out of the department in question so they have no incentive whatsoever to change behavior/policy.

Then let's say an officer does get fired from the force, he'll just end up at a different department doing all the same bad things.

There are myriad systems/levels in place is designed to protect an officer from getting in any sort of trouble or facing any punishment.

example: these officers left an innocent person, without being charged with a crime, to die in custody. He had to drink his own urine in order to survive his kidnapping.

He was awarded 4.1 million in his settlement.

The officers faced no charges. They weren't charged with false arrest, kidnapping, false imprisonment, nothing. Their punishment for depriving someone of freedom, hospitalizing him, traumatizing him and nearly killing him? a five day suspension.

Officials criticize DEA apos s light punishment of agents who forgot man in cell for 5 days - LA Times

 

[waday]

Here's a case where the officer is being charged with homicide.
Hummelstown police officer charged with homicide

Mearkle chased him behind the house and used her stun gun, striking Kassick in the back with the probes, Marsico said.

Kassick fell to the snow-covered ground and was lying face down when Mearkle ordered him to show his hands. She continued to use the stun gun while Kassick was on the ground, then shot him twice in the back.

The district attorney said Kassick did not have a gun and never brandished anything that could have been viewed as a potential weapon.

Oh yeah, he was pulled over for an expired inspection sticker. If that's the penalty, I should go check mine right now...

 

[Braineack]

It's a valid reason to be stopped, yes. Tased, no.

 

[Designer]

TPF handles not only civil law, but criminal law as well.

Just ask us!