Here We Go Again! Body cam footage Dallas PD shoot mentally ill man

a reply to: IvanAstikov

You drop the screw driver, which is what he was told because cops cant read minds. Its safer to drop the item when told to rather than walk to wards an officer holding a potential weapon.

Why did the guy fail to comply?

He refused to drop the item after being told to do so several times. He then started moving towards an officer. What response would you think was going to occur? For the cops to stand there and be stabbed?

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

I didn't tell a story, I mentioned the relevant details of an incident I was involved in. When further detail was required, I provided it. That isn't telling several different stories however many times you say it.

lol ok

Perhaps a few on here should look up the injury stats before taking such a hard stance against the police.

Police injury stats
2013: 100 killed and 14857 assault with injuries.

The number of people killed by police in the same year was 320.

It seems to me that the police are quite restrained in their use of deadly force.

A question to the officer inline here:
Does any assault on an officer justify the use of deadly force in return?
A punch?
A take down to the ground for a wrestle?
A razor blade?

Where is the legal line drawn?

a reply to: samkent

Now are those convicted assaults or charged?

Cause that seems to be a charge that gets thrown around alot, a spit is assault, really any physical contact during an arrest seems like per the letter of the law can be seen as assault.

originally posted by: samkent
A question to the officer inline here:
Does any assault on an officer justify the use of deadly force in return?

A punch?
A take down to the ground for a wrestle?
A razor blade?

Where is the legal line drawn?

The use of deadly force is determined by what's occurring / what the officer is perceiving. Because of the items we carry an argument can be made that if a person attacks an officer and the officer is in a position of becoming incapacitated that the items can then be taken an used - not only against the officer but anyone else around.

The officer will be required to justify the force used.

It just really depends on the circumstances. Trying to label what is or is not a deadly force encounter cant work.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hundreds Of Police Killings go uncounted. WallSt Journal

More than 1000 people killed by police 2014

There are many more sites and recent articles that will help explain how the FBI numbers are far from a complete list officer involved deaths.

originally posted by: HighFive
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hundreds Of Police Killings go uncounted. WallSt Journal

More than 1000 people killed by police 2014

There are many more sites and recent articles that will help explain how the FBI numbers are far from a complete list officer involved deaths.

The WSJ article requires an account / subscription to read it and I don't have one.
The second link talks about the killedbypolice.net site.

What I am trying to say is of those individuals killed, how many were justified shootings and how many were not? While they focus on the fact not all agencies send info to the DOJ, it ignores the fact that states are required to collect the information for state use so the stats can be checked against state records.

What I am saying is any number of deaths, for officers or civilians, that rise above 0 is too many. With that said it takes 2 to tango so determining the number of valid shoots is just as important. The entire blame cannot be laid at the hands of law enforcement.

Data shows over 1000 people killed by police 2014

Here's another one.

"But therein lies the problem. Those numbers are voluntarily given to the FBI by police, and many jurisdictions simply don't hand over this information, thus making an accurate accounting of how manyeople police have killed each year extremely difficult to ascertain.

For instance the killing of Eric Garner would not be included in the FBI 2014 statistics because New York doesn't participate in the voluntary program."

Killedbypolice.com names those killed and provides a link to media reports. Age,sex, race if available


And I don't blame LEOs entirely for the problem. Other factors:
Drug war, police militarization, over policing minority' neighborhoods, no knock warrants etc

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: here4this
Prohibited from a non-fatal shot? I guess the police engagement rules have changed a lot over the years...a sign of the changing times. And by the way , several of my close relatives are city police officers , county sheriffs' deputies , well known attorneys , judges.....

Its NOT Police Department Rules.

Its State and Federal Law, not to mention several Amendments from the Bill of Rights.

and if you ask any of them, and they know what they are talking about, they will tell you they cannot shoot to wound.

Please give a citation, and if possible a web link to these State and Federal laws.

Please cite the relevant amendments from the bill of rights making it illegal, under color of law, to wound rather than kill, or that you can't shoot to wound. Which State? I'll have my LE contacts look it up from my end.

TIA

Are you actually employed as a deputy on active duty?

What these cops did was sickening. In Nazi Germany they experimented on the mentally ill. In America they'll just shoot your ass.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IvanAstikov

You drop the screw driver, which is what he was told because cops cant read minds. Its safer to drop the item when told to rather than walk to wards an officer holding a potential weapon.

Why did the guy fail to comply?

He refused to drop the item after being told to do so several times. He then started moving towards an officer. What response would you think was going to occur? For the cops to stand there and be stabbed?

The woman in the video said he was bipolar schizo. If he was hearing voices he may not have comprehended what the officer told him. I have the same thing bipolar schizophrenia. When I was ill I couldn't comprehend what people said to me. I couldn't follow conversations or participate in them. There we times when I was afraid of the hallucinations and I armed myself.

a reply to: wantsome

Thanks for giving him a personalised view on why a mentally troubled person might not be able to understand simple commands. This is another of those blind spots in xcathdra's police-orientated mindset.

originally posted by: Maverick7
Please give a citation, and if possible a web link to these State and Federal laws. Please cite the relevant amendments from the bill of rights making it illegal, under color of law, to wound rather than kill, or that you can't shoot to wound. Which State? I'll have my LE contacts look it up from my end.

** This is most likely going to be a long post taking up several posts. I want to make sure I get you the info you are wanting while trying to make it easier for others to understand at a glance with some explanations. **


To start - Use of Force - Subject Resistance Control - Federal case law rulings.

* - 42 USC 1983 - Civil rights violations as applied to an individual acting under the color of law.

* - This is a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

* - Tennessee vs. Garner - 471 U.S. 1 (1985) - This ruling established the guidelines for an officers use of deadly force. The ruling prohibits an officer from using deadly force to stop a suspected fleeing felon. There are established exceptions to this ruling - Specifically does the suspect pose an immediate / imminent danger to the community at large. If yes, it allows law enforcement to engage the person with deadly force when the person is running away.

* - 522 F. 2d 990 - Downs II v. United States - This stemmed from a joint Fed / State response to a hijacked plane on the tarmac. They raided the plane which instigated a shootout where officers and civilians were killed. The court took notice that there was no "plan" but simply an action by law Enforcement which was to shoot everyone (bad guys to end the threat). The court ruling ended the ability of law enforcement to take that type of deadly force action.


* - Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989) This ruling further defined use of force by requiring the reasonableness requirement for use of force. It also defined, to an extent, excessive use of force. The ruling also attached these actions to the 4th amendment. In previous rulings on use of force the court defined use of force as starting from a uniformed officer in a marked patrol unit, to arresting a person, etc. All actions in that they are considered use of force for legal reasons - Specifically the 4th amendment. Using deadly force on an individual is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment. It allows for criminal prosecution if not justified as well as Federal prosecution for the civil rights violation. It also allowed the states to adopt similar laws at their level.


* - 84 F. 3d 1162 - Reynolds v. County of San Diego - In this ruling responding officers have no duty to experiment in the face of danger. The subject / suspect had no constitutional right to a less lethal application of force while presenting an obvious life-threatening danger to the involved officers.

The above court cases established -
* - A standard for the reasonableness on use of force given the circumstances.
* - Established nation wide requirements for all law enforcement to create a uniform standard.

* - The use of a firearm is reserved solely to encounters where -
A - There is an immediate threat of death to an officer / bystanders present.
B - The suspect poses an imminent threat to the community at large.
Using the reasonableness standard is it reasonable for an officer to use deadly force in an effort to wound an individual? No, because use of a gun to effect an arrest / stop a threat is predicated on an immediate threat of life / officer / community. If there is no threat of life then its by definition NOT a deadly force situation.

* - States were given the ability to establish their own state law equivalents considering the state / county / local law enforcement have primary jurisdiction, including the courts. they must be in sync with the federal rulings.

Con Law applications -
* - 4th Amendment US Constitution - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Using force to effect an arrest, detention or stop must be reasonable. Using deadly force in an effort to wound a person can be viewed as inhumane and an excessive use of force given the reasonableness of the situation in question. If you try to wound and miss, hitting the person in the spinal cord resulting in paralysis, not only are you saying the person was not a threat, but now you have deprived them of mobility, a way of life in addition to violating 42 USC 1983.

Excessive Force -

Excessive force refers to force in excess of what a police officer reasonably believes is necessary. A police officer may be held liable for using excessive force in an arrest, an investigatory stop, or other seizures. A police officer may also be liable for not preventing another police officer from using excessive force.

Whether the police officer has used force in excess of what he reasonably believed necessary at the time of action is a factual issue to be determined by the jury.

Generally speaking situations where use of deadly force is present are most often occurring in a situation where people are moving and not standing still. The chances of hitting legs or arms are slim in those encounters.

Legal Limits on Deadly Force

The U.S. Supreme Court has verified that officers may open fire, knowing that shooting is likely to cause death or serious injury, when a suspect is:

•Suspected of a "severe" crime,
•Posing an immediate threat to officers, and
•Actively resisting arrest.

If an officer tries to wound an individual and misses and kills a civilian / bystander they can be charged in that death. Unlike the military the concept of acceptable casualties is non existent and for good reason in civilian law enforcement.


State Law - In a nut shell
MO RSMo's - authority of police and use of force application to arrests / stops / detentions.

No unreasonable force shall be used in detaining or arresting any person, but such force as may be necessary may be used when there is no other apparent means of making an arrest or preventing an escape and only after the peace officer has made every reasonable effort to advise the person that he is the peace officer engaged in making arrest.

Are you actually employed as a deputy on active duty?

Municipal Officer

Texas State Law -
TX Penal Code - Title 2 Chapter 9 - General provisions - sec 21

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Connecticut State Law -
CHAPTER 951*PENAL CODE: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

(c) A peace officer or authorized official of the Department of Correction or the Board of Parole is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for the purposes specified in subsection (b) of this section only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to: (1) Defend himself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (2) effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony which involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and if, where feasible, he has given warning of his intent to use deadly physical force.

Neither MO nor TX nor CTlaw allows for the use of wounding shots / warning shots.

If I have to cite the laws for all 50 states I can but they are going to be pretty similar. A gun in the realm of law enforcement is classified as a Deadly Force weapon whose use is reserved solely to an imminent threat of death or danger to the public at large.

Using a deadly force weapon in an effort to "intentionally wound" is an excessive use of force and is prohibited by law.

Since the 1960's up to the present the courts at all levels have consistently defined certain situations and actions regarding law enforcement.. These revisions / clarifications have occurred over the last 40 years and will continue to evolve. The use of deadly force was made clear in Tenn Vs. Garner and has been defined since then.

If you have any question by all means let me know. If you or anyone else sees a mistake, again let me know.



Forgot to ad this -

The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).


A quick over view of the US legal system for context.
* - If something occurs at the local level it goes through the state court system. Municipal court / County courts, State Appeals Courts and State Supreme Court. If the ruling is still challenged it goes to the Federal appeals level. A ruling by an Federal Appeals circuit only affects / applies to those states that are within that district.

As an example the 9th Circuit (west coast) ruled Tasers are to be considered an intermediary use of force item, meaning law enforcement in that area, in general, cannot start with Tasing a person (exceptions exist). It requires the situation to reach a certain level before it can be used. That ruling does not apply to any other states. Other federal circuits can use it as a precedence if they have similar cases come before them. They can also issue a conflicting ruling.

When those things happen it can go to the Supreme Court. Generally speaking rulings by SCOTUS are required to be applied to all affected states, even if that state had no issues.

edit on 19-3-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Unlike the military the concept of acceptable casualties is non existent

Unless you call the casualty a threatening criminal, that is.

originally posted by: IvanAstikov

Unlike the military the concept of acceptable casualties is non existent

Unless you call the casualty a threatening criminal, that is.

And as I stated the officer using force is required to explain / justify their actions. Are you going to engage the topic or just troll the thread making asinine comments you cant support?

a reply to: Xcathdra
Stop calling anyone who has a different viewpoint to your own a troll and we might have a more reasonable interwebs interaction.

It's all very well an officer having to explain/justify themself, but those they are doing it to are mostly looking for any reason to exonerate them, unless they have seriously pissed someone off. Union reps will tell these cops exactly what to say to maximise empathy and garner public sympathy for their gut-wrenching decision to end someone's life, they'll throw in how terribly fearful they was and said killer will get a slap on the wrist and reinstated to beat duties as soon as it is possible without creating outrage.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

I don't mind differing opinions. I do mind it when the opinion is based on faulty / wrong information or applied as a blanket to a situation. You have done nothing but constantly snipe in this thread while refusing to add anything of substance.

I am not the only person who has raised this problem in this thread.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sniping/criticising, tomato/tomato, we're differing in opinion again. What substance would you like me to provide to satisfy your needs, xcathdra?

I am not the only person who has raised this problem in this thread.

Argumentum ad populum? Really? Is that the angle you are going to choose to dismiss my views?