There are still some good cops out there.

originally posted by: Greathouse

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

SUSPECT does not make him guilty!

a reply to: VoidHawk

When the suspect is running at you screaming for you to kill him... I'd say the officer would have been well within his rights to shoot the guy. Glad he didn't. But no recriminations would have, nor should they have, come his way.

But since it ended with no blood being shed by anyone, the point is moot.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: swanne

One thing that blew my mind was this officer was a marine that served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why should that blow your mind? Experiencing combat helps prepare one for confrontation down the road, armed or otherwise.

@ eisegesis - yea, he would've been legally justified in shooting (probably), though there very likely would've been significant backlash. As has been pointed out any number of times, talking about using a Taser is only germane if the officer has one. If he didn't, then it's entirely moot.

@ Seeker - great point. In fact, Serpico still gets death threats to this day. Which blows my mind.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Greathouse

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

SUSPECT does not make him guilty!

You guys are just being silly now. The end result was that he chose not to shoot.

BTW he allegedly shot his girlfriend in Ohio then traveled to Kentucky to allegedly shoot his friend but I guess that wouldn't have any bearing on your thought when the suspect allegedly failed to comply.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: swanne

One thing that blew my mind was this officer was a marine that served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why should that blow your mind? Experiencing combat helps prepare one for confrontation down the road, armed or otherwise.

@ eisegesis - yea, he would've been legally justified in shooting (probably), though there very likely would've been significant backlash. As has been pointed out any number of times, talking about using a Taser is only germane if the officer has one. If he didn't, then it's entirely moot.

@ Seeker - great point. In fact, Serpico still gets death threats to this day. Which blows my mind.

I can agree with your synopsis.

But the reason I was pleasantly surprised. Was that I have attributed the recent militarization of police due to the fact that they are heavily recruiting military veterans.

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Greathouse

The body cam makes no difference in this officers reactions because he was well within his rights to shoot and would've been vindicated by the body cam.

Within his right to shoot? If the suspect didn't appear armed and was rushing the cop, a Taser would have been the safest bet. With that said, putting your hands into your pockets is probably the worse thing he could have done and I'm surprised the officer showed restraint. That guy's luck was running out fast.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

Sorry, there is no dead until proven innocent. If you believed you committed murder out of self defense, not saying he did, wouldn't you want a chance to prove it?

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: swanne

One thing that blew my mind was this officer was a marine that served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why should that blow your mind? Experiencing combat helps prepare one for confrontation down the road, armed or otherwise.

@ eisegesis - yea, he would've been legally justified in shooting (probably), though there very likely would've been significant backlash. As has been pointed out any number of times, talking about using a Taser is only germane if the officer has one. If he didn't, then it's entirely moot.

@ Seeker - great point. In fact, Serpico still gets death threats to this day. Which blows my mind.

I can agree with your synopsis.

But the reason I was pleasantly surprised. Was that I have attributed the recent militarization of police due to the fact that they are heavily recruiting military veterans.

You have allowed yourself to be influenced by the propaganda if that's the case then.

Not all cops are racists, and not all veterans are blood thirsty killers?

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Greathouse

The body cam makes no difference in this officers reactions because he was well within his rights to shoot and would've been vindicated by the body cam.

Within his right to shoot? If the suspect didn't appear armed and was rushing the cop, a Taser would have been the safest bet. With that said, putting your hands into your pockets is probably the worse thing he could have done and I'm surprised the officer showed restraint. That guy's luck was running out fast.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

Sorry, there is no dead until proven innocent. If you believed you committed murder out of self defense, not saying he did, wouldn't you want a chance to prove it?

That's not even remotely close to what happened are you just attempting to justify your opinion? Btw The police officer would've been justified to shoot him running away because he was a dangerous felony suspect.

Innocent men generally do not charge police officers.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: swanne

One thing that blew my mind was this officer was a marine that served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why should that blow your mind? Experiencing combat helps prepare one for confrontation down the road, armed or otherwise.

@ eisegesis - yea, he would've been legally justified in shooting (probably), though there very likely would've been significant backlash. As has been pointed out any number of times, talking about using a Taser is only germane if the officer has one. If he didn't, then it's entirely moot.

@ Seeker - great point. In fact, Serpico still gets death threats to this day. Which blows my mind.

I can agree with your synopsis.

But the reason I was pleasantly surprised. Was that I have attributed the recent militarization of police due to the fact that they are heavily recruiting military veterans.

You have allowed yourself to be influenced by the propaganda if that's the case then.

Not all cops are racists, and not all veterans are blood thirsty killers?

I agree with your statement not to blanket all police officers together.

But the conclusion I had drawn about the military veterans and militarization of the police was solely my own.
Boys like their toys and I was referring to the influx of military equipment.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: VoidHawk

When the suspect is running at you screaming for you to kill him... I'd say the officer would have been well within his rights to shoot the guy. Glad he didn't. But no recriminations would have, nor should they have, come his way.

But since it ended with no blood being shed by anyone, the point is moot.

Lets add some context.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect

The poster I was responding to was implying it was ok to shoot because he was a double murder suspect.
Being a "suspect" does not make him a double murderer.

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Greathouse

The body cam makes no difference in this officers reactions because he was well within his rights to shoot and would've been vindicated by the body cam.

Within his right to shoot? If the suspect didn't appear armed and was rushing the cop, a Taser would have been the safest bet. With that said, putting your hands into your pockets is probably the worse thing he could have done and I'm surprised the officer showed restraint. That guy's luck was running out fast.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

Sorry, there is no dead until proven innocent. If you believed you committed murder out of self defense, not saying he did, wouldn't you want a chance to prove it?

That's not even remotely close to what happened are you just attempting to justify your opinion? Btw The police officer would've been justified to shoot him running away because he was a dangerous felony suspect.

Innocent men generally do not charge police officers.

I'm attempting to justify Due Process.

a reply to: VoidHawk

This guy could have been shot with no back story as soon as he started running at the cop.
Don't agree with it, but that is how it goes.

a reply to: Greathouse

Just playing devils advocate but one has to wonder if the situation would have transpired differently should the camera not have been present?

Good on the officer in question for displaying the appropriate qualities expected from an officer of the law.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: VoidHawk

When the suspect is running at you screaming for you to kill him... I'd say the officer would have been well within his rights to shoot the guy. Glad he didn't. But no recriminations would have, nor should they have, come his way.

But since it ended with no blood being shed by anyone, the point is moot.

Lets add some context.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect

The poster I was responding to was implying it was ok to shoot because he was a double murder suspect.
Being a "suspect" does not make him a double murderer.

And if a murder "suspect" doesn't want to comply they should just let them all go?

Your position is completely ridiculous .

Cop this. Cop that. Label. We taught our kids that if you needed help and couldn't find a cop find a patched biker. They'll get you home too. Frickin labels. There's good and bad in everything. Trust me. I've known both.

I think it is great the officer didn't shoot the guy. However, I don't know that this can be held up as an example for all. I've seen some arguments that NOT shooting this guy was the wrong thing to do. Given how the officer lost footing, this could have easily turned into a dead cop scenario. I won't bother posting videos showing situations like this going bad as there are plenty examples out there where the suspect over powers the cop.

There are far too many people playing Monday morning quarterback. The one undeniable fact in all these cases being held up about supposedly rogue police is SUSPECTS RESISTING ARREST. When you resist arrest, you are escalating a situation and basically playing with fire. Nothing good is going to result from it.

Flame away.

originally posted by: Greathouse
And if a murder "suspect" doesn't want to comply they should just let them all go?
Your position is completely ridiculous .

Not at all.
I agree with what most are saying here, I just dont believe that being a suspect gives the cop any right to open fire. Where does it end?
The cop could say "I shot him because he might have been a murder suspect"
Would that be ok with you?
Certainly wouldn't be for me, or the courts!
Suspect is also a - Might be!

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Greathouse
And if a murder "suspect" doesn't want to comply they should just let them all go?
Your position is completely ridiculous .

Not at all.
I agree with what most are saying here, I just dont believe that being a suspect gives the cop any right to open fire. Where does it end?
The cop could say "I shot him because he might have been a murder suspect"
Would that be ok with you?
Certainly wouldn't be for me, or the courts!
Suspect is also a - Might be!

Never said they should be allowed to shoot someone because they are a suspect. But if their life is in danger with a murder suspect resisting arrest. I would allow them to preserve their own life.

a reply to: Greathouse

Never said they should be allowed to shoot someone because they are a suspect.

Yes you did.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

And...

Btw The police officer would've been justified to shoot him running away because he was a dangerous felony suspect.

If you're saying he was well within his rights, then you are saying he was allowed due to those rights. Then you said...

BTW he allegedly shot his girlfriend in Ohio then traveled to Kentucky to allegedly shoot his friend but I guess that wouldn't have any bearing on your thought when the suspect allegedly failed to comply.

So is he guilty or a suspect? I didn't know cops could make that judgment outside a court of law.

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Greathouse

The body cam makes no difference in this officers reactions because he was well within his rights to shoot and would've been vindicated by the body cam.

Within his right to shoot? If the suspect didn't appear armed and was rushing the cop, a Taser would have been the safest bet. With that said, putting your hands into your pockets is probably the worse thing he could have done and I'm surprised the officer showed restraint. That guy's luck was running out fast.

He was well within his rights to shoot at a double murder suspect (The murders happened the same day) that led police on a high-speed chase then started charging . Yeah I would have to say well within his rights.

Sorry, there is no dead until proven innocent. If you believed you committed murder out of self defense, not saying he did, wouldn't you want a chance to prove it?

That's not even remotely close to what happened are you just attempting to justify your opinion? Btw The police officer would've been justified to shoot him running away because he was a dangerous felony suspect.

Innocent men generally do not charge police officers.

I'm attempting to justify Due Process.

Know who else justified due process? The cop.

So what is your point?