It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
If an officer feels threatened he is allowed to use lethal force. If the officer waits to see a weapon it's already going to be too late for him.
This is a criminal who:
1.Went on a rampage targeting police officers
2. Has a history of violence
3. Was considered armed and dangerous
4. Was given orders by the officer to halt and refused thus earning himself the death penalty
There are two separate stories here floating around. One is about the police thinking they had the suspect holed up in a building. They called in SWAT. No one was present.
The second story is what really happened to him. He had stolen a car. An officer was inspecting the vehicle. The suspect approached and was killed.
and its sickening communists like you that beleive the cops are the judge and jury here.
Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
always shoot first ask questions and find evidence later typical cop revenge story
Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
always shoot first ask questions and find evidence later typical cop revenge story
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Why would the suspect need to take the gun of one of the slain officers in the coffee shop when he had his own gun with magic bullets and all that took out four supposedly trained police officers?
Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
If an officer feels threatened he is allowed to use lethal force. If the officer waits to see a weapon it's already going to be too late for him.
This is a criminal who:
1.Went on a rampage targeting police officers
2. Has a history of violence
3. Was considered armed and dangerous
4. Was given orders by the officer to halt and refused thus earning himself the death penalty
I have no idea where you are a law enforcement officer, but please tell me the town and state so I can avoid it at any cost.
You have no idea what youre talking about, and/or if you truly believe what youve written, you need to change jobs NOW, or talk to someone because youre too too anxious to draw down.
When is it justifiable to use deadly force?
You are universally justified in the use of deadly force when there is a reasonable fear of immediate or otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury to the innocent. All these factors must be present in order to justifiably use deadly force. Lacking any one or more of the key factors will result in a questionable use of deadly force and you will face the criminal and civil consequences.
An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawffully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it.
There are three requirements for the officer to take into consideration:
-Weapon
-Intent
-Delivery System
Breaking down these three items:
-Weapon: The weapon must be something likely to cause death.
-Intent: The person's actions show they are planning on using the weapon.
-Delivery system: The person must be capable of using the weapon against you. For example, the knife would not be a threat at 100 yards, but a rifle would.
As soon as all three are present, they can use deadly force. They do not have to wait for the other person to make the first move, they just need to articulate the criteria above.
Even though there is a weapon, and possibly a delivery system, simply ignoring an officer's commands alone does not prove intent.
[edit on 1-12-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]