Pinal County Sheriff Deputy kills Manuel Longoria while Longoria's hands are raised in the air.

Another_Nut
You sir are a liar

really? You and gogo should really learn to hold a conversation without starting off by calling a person a liar, especially when your position is based on something other than law.

Another_Nut
1 i know how tazers work . And you admitted they work the way i describe (locking muscles) you are assuming they didn't make proper contact

Apparently you don't know how they work.

Another_Nut
2 he was not tazered then bagged. I have gone over this ad nausium

while ignoring the point that less lethal was used and was not effective.

Another_Nut
This is the correct order of events as shown in the posted vid

Clear cross fire
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Tazed
Turns puts hands on roof
Bullet (in back)
Bullet (in back)
Ded

Trying to say he was tazed then bagged then shot is not true in the slightest

See Defcon 5's post about the video.

Another_Nut
You an a murders apologists

So when I don't agree with you and provide you the laws in question, you call me a murderer apologist? Im amazed you have not used the liar liar pants on fire defense.

grow up please and act like an adult.

Another_Nut
And (like the investigations done after the shoot) have no concern for anyone other that officers

Whats your point? If it were 2 civilians we would be seeing the same thing - an investigation.

Another_Nut
Last reply to your bloodless

Good day

edit on pm120143101America/ChicagoMon, 27 Jan 2014 13:57:47 -0600_1000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

dear diary.....

/end sarcasm.

If you wish to engage in debate then may I suggest you know what you are talking about and how laws work and apply. Calling me names is not a valid position and only reinforces the fact that when you come across something you don't like, you ignore it while doing all you can to shift the focus onto something else.

While this may be your last post to me, I will continue to respond and make corrections to your posts so people who are interested in learning aren't misled by blind hatred of law enforcement.

Another_Nut

Eta
www.cops.usdoj.gov...

Read the order of force use

Impact

The could have rushed him. He was obviously un armed except for that pointy finger

edit on pm120143102America/ChicagoMon, 27 Jan 2014 14:11:18 -0600_1000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

No they could not have rushed him. But thank you for once again demonstrating why people who don't know the law or how it applies, let alone how law enforcement works, should not use their opinion as fact or a course of action.

please, educate yourself and quit using blind emotion.

GogoVicMorrow
Yes. This is the proper sequence of events.

A person holding a gun pointing towards the ground does not have to raise, take aim and start to pull the trigger before others can act. You and others are linking onto issues that are not relevant in terms of use of force review. You are ignoring the actions of the suspect from point A up to the use of force. the suspect already demonstrated a lack of concern for people - both police and the public as a whole. Ignoring that does not make your case, it undermines it.

GogoVicMorrow
Xcath, it's not like we here in this discussion were the first to watch it and determine what happened. It was clear to all, and the article writers that he had his hands up.

No sir it is not. I make this comment based on the lack of knowledge some are using to arrive at their conclusion. I base that comment on the refusal to recognize actions for what they are and to view the situation in a manner that it will be reviewed in. Totality of circumstances will be a big one, and that starts with the moment the suspect stole the car and was caught.

GogoVicMorrow
It wasn't justified.

Base on what laws? Ive asked this and you never answered it.

Your position is the use of force was not justified. Please cite the laws that were broken by law enforcement. Not your opinion, but the actual laws.

GogoVicMorrow
You answered a lot of my post, but the only thing i want an answer to is:

Do you think that police officers charged with violent crimes generally get lighter sentences than civilians charged with the same crimes?

Ive answered this several times now. Read, then come back.

Xcathdra
Shooting was justified under law. again, laws and not your personal morals / belief on what should have occurred.

Again....

THIS WAS LEGAL IN GERMANY WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!!!

HandyDandy

Xcathdra
Shooting was justified under law. again, laws and not your personal morals / belief on what should have occurred.

Again....

THIS WAS LEGAL IN GERMANY WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!!!

Ah yes, the Nazi reference when your argument falls apart. Any reason you use Germany? This has been around a lot onger than Germany has been a country.

Civus Romanus comes to mind.

If you wish to participate, please use logic and laws.

Feel free to answer my question to Gogo and nut.

If the shooting is not justified, what laws were violated by law enforcement?

Xcathdra
Ah yes, the Nazi reference when your argument falls apart. Any reason you use Germany?

I use Germany to show that your argument is really the one falling apart when you keep blathering on about lawful this and lawful that. I use Germany to show you just what your mindset creates.

Got it yet?

Or in other words.......laws do not make something right or wrong.

reply to post by HandyDandy


I have to ask XCathdra.......

Back in the day would you be one of the guys hunting down runaway slaves because it was "unlawful"?

Think about that long and hard.

HandyDandy
I use Germany to show that your argument is really the one falling apart when you keep blathering on about lawful this and lawful that. I use Germany to show you just what your mindset creates.

I gave an example that predated Germany. I was demonstrating to you that it requires more than just you saying Germany to make your case.

Got it yet?

HandyDandy
Or in other words.......laws do not make something right or wrong.

As a matter if fact they do. Your argument is based on personal ethics and morals while ignoring all else. That is a problem, not to mention a position that was also used in Nazi Germany.

If you are going to invoke something, maybe you should understand it first.

and I pointed out to you that we could look at the term Civus Romanus and explore what would happen should a person who speaks that is attacked by someone who is not a civus romanus.

Your Germany argument has no basis for what im asking or what we are talking about.

So I ask again, please use laws that show the actions are as you claim.

Or in other words.......laws do not make something right or wrong.

while at the same time ignoring laws you don't like / personally agree with don't make those laws invalid nor does it make people who follow those laws criminal.

I can tell you though that to make the changes you want, citing Germany is not gonna do it. So please, again, education is the goal.

muzzleflash
So if you have a car collision, and then 'Surrender'...they get still justifiably shoot you ? No.

muzzleflash
They can only shoot to defend life, not to "Punish and Neutralize" offensively or as retribution.

Xcathdra feel free to correct me here if you feel this is incorrect, but this is my understanding from my LEO friends in the state of FL:

Under the strictest sense, state statute (in my state, and I assume most others) allows an officer to use lethal force if need be to stop a fleeing felon who is in the course of committing a felony. That is why a unarmed prisoner escaping from a prison can be shot on sight by a law enforcement officer. They are considered a desperate, dangerous person who is willing to put others at risk to prevent his recapture.

An officer may use the required force to effect an arrest under the 'use of force matrix'. In this case, the persons actions showed that he was unwilling to surrender until lethal force was employed. The fact that when the reality of the situation hit him, when the pain of being shot was felt, caused him to change his mind, well, its already too late at that point when you have pushed your luck to that level.

Someone who has shown intent to be dangerous, stated his intentions, has battered a law enforcement officer, is refusing to give up voluntarily, most assuredly can be legally shot. That is exactly what this situation was, exactly why he was shot, and exactly why the officers will be exonerated. The fact that there are civilians out there that fail to understand these basic premises of the law, is why police don't open up their actions up to 'civilian review boards'.

“shooting to defend life” is much more broadly interpreted for the police then it is for a civilian under self defense laws. For a police officer it has to do more with intent and potential then with actual actions.

HandyDandy
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

I have to ask XCathdra.......

Back in the day would you be one of the guys hunting down runaway slaves because it was "unlawful"?

Think about that long and hard.

There is nothing to think about. I would gladly protect the "slave" and ensure his safety. As I stated before, you should educate yourself prior to making accusation / accusing a person that you know nothing about. The implication in your post is based on nothing more than ignorance and, like the others, undermines your position while demonstrating you are not capable of engaging in a valid discussion without resorting to name calling.

What does it say about your personal morals / ethics when you accuse a person of being friendly to slavery when you in fact have nothing at all to support the claim? Come to think of it I believe that was a tactic used in Nazi Germany in an effort to remove people when the powers had nothing else to go on for the person.

ironic that you use the very tactics you disdain and equate to others.

Since the issue of slavery has been resolved how about you answer my question.

please show the laws that were violated y the police.

defcon5
They can only shoot to defend life, not to "Punish and Neutralize" offensively or as retribution.

Xcathdra feel free to correct me here if you feel this is incorrect, but this is my understanding from my LEO friends in the state of FL:

Under the strictest sense, state statute (in my state, and I assume most others) allows an officer to use lethal force if need be to stop a fleeing felon who is in the course of committing a felony. That is why a unarmed prisoner escaping from a prison can be shot on sight by a law enforcement officer. They are considered a desperate, dangerous person who is willing to put others at risk to prevent his recapture.

Not quite -
An officer cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless they can articulate that the suspect poses an imminent and immediate danger to a person / officer / public as a whole. That came from Tennessee vs. Garner.

A person who has been convicted in a court of law and is assigned to a correctional facility falls under a separate category because of their status. They cant be just shot because, however in an escape attempt, because of the conviction, it could be justified. As with anything else, the use of force would be reviewed in the manner prescribed by law in addition to established criteria dealing specifically with that scenario.



Back to Defcon5's post -
An officer may use the required force to effect an arrest under the 'use of force matrix'. In this case, the persons actions showed that he was unwilling to surrender until lethal force was employed. The fact that when the reality of the situation hit him, when the pain of being shot was felt, caused him to change his mind, well, its already too late at that point when you have pushed your luck to that level.

Someone who has shown intent to be dangerous, stated his intentions, has battered a law enforcement officer, is refusing to give up voluntarily, most assuredly can be legally shot. That is exactly what this situation was, exactly why he was shot, and exactly why the officers will be exonerated. The fact that there are civilians out there that fail to understand these basic premises of the law, is why police don't open up their actions up to 'civilian review boards'.

“shooting to defend life” is much more broadly interpreted for the police then it is for a civilian under self defense laws. For a police officer it has to do more with intent and potential then with actual actions.
End Defcon5's post.





My 2 cents
Law enforcement does not shoot to kill - They shoot to stop the threat. Believe it or not there is a difference. As for your post above you pretty much nailed it. If people have issues with the very laws that govern this, then it would suggest they become familiar with those laws so they can adequately argue why they need to be changed.

sadly, they don't do this and seem to stop at the just complaining stage,

Xcathdra
reply to post by defcon5

 

I don't even think one of them has considered the fact the guy could have ended it before it started by, you know, not stealing a car and breaking the law.

You know... I get that point... to a point. He made a choice. Broke the law, stole a car, led the cops on some stupid, dangerous chase and could have hurt a lot of people.

I think that the punishment far exceeded the crime, and I don't think the officer that shot him made the best choice. However, I will say that while I know there was a pause and the guy had his back turned with his hand up (technically) when he was shot, it wasn't much of a pause, and I don't know if the cop even had time to register that his hands were up. I think the police officer was reacting to what looked like that kid trying to reach into the car, maybe a bit reactionary on the part of the officer, but not enough to nail him to the wall for it. All told, things were happening really fast, and this went pear-shaped in a hurry.

Xcathdra@ gogo - Based on the guys actions, and video, law enforcement actions were within the law / justified.

By all means though - please explain how law enforcement actions were not justified using actual law / supreme court rulings and not your opinion.

Legally justified does not always mean morally justified. I have no doubt that these police officers acted within the law, and frankly, I think that this is precisely the kind of situation where there should be some leeway for the officers. Having said that, I think that the officer that shot him made a mistake, to my mind an understandable mistake, but a mistake none-the-less. But this is not one (for once) where I am going to get my proverbial panties in a bunch if no one is punished for this.

Xcathdra
There is nothing to think about. I would gladly protect the "slave" and ensure his safety.

I really am not so sure about that. In fact, I can't think of anyone who would become a law enforcement officer just to go against the law. Would you?

As I stated before, you should educate yourself prior to making accusation / accusing a person that you know nothing about.

I am not making any accusations. You have already described yourself as a law enforcement officer. Meaning you would enforce the law. And the law back then was what exactly?

So, I didn't accuse you of anything other than being a law enforcement officer.

Can we see why the argument of "it's the law" is a silly one yet?

HandyDandy
I really am not so sure about that. In fact, I can't think of anyone who would become a law enforcement officer just to go against the law. Would you?

Wow.. Lets try this again.. you asked me a question and I provided my answer. I think I am an expert on what I would or would not do and in this area, your opinion means nothing as it pertains to my actions. To try and argue otherwise is... just.. wow.

Ive answered this question - Yes I would go against the law, and have done so it certain circumstances.

Are you that close-minded that you are incapable of exercising independent thought rather than a group mentality because you hate law enforcement?

Don't ask me a personal question only to tell me what my answer is.

HandyDandy
I am not making any accusations. You have already described yourself as a law enforcement officer. Meaning you would enforce the law. And the law back then was what exactly?

You did make an accusation.. several actually. Yuo just accused me of lying with my answer to your idiotic slavery question.

Very good - Law Enforcement enforces the law.
The next part to understand would be the PA is the entity that files charges, not law enforcement.
The judge / jury decide guilt or innocent, not law enforcement.

What law do you want to know about and what time period are you wanting it placed into context?

HandyDandy
So, I didn't accuse you of anything other than being a law enforcement officer.

Then you should take the time to understand what you type and the manner in which you type it because invoking Nazi Germany is in fact an accusation, whether explicit or implicit.

If you don't know / don't understand the difference then maybe you should think twice about using something as an example.

HandyDandy
Can we see why the argument of "it's the law" is a silly one yet?

Its only silly to those who don't know / cant understand it.

reply to post by redhorse


The one thing people do in situations like this is base their position on the information they read. Then they draw their own moral conclusion without understanding context.

In this case, as well as the bulk of others I have seen, people on this site sound off and its almost always after the fact.

They fail, and outright refuse, to view the situation in proper context when it comes to officer actions. At the time of this incident, the officers did not know if this guy in fact had a weapon or not. They have no idea if the guys is mentally unstable, on drugs, a psychotic break, what his true intentions are, whether the guy would in fact kill law enforcement or even kill other civilians that might cross his path.

hence the reason scotus said an officers use of force can only be reviewed based on what the officer perceived at the moment force was used. This is to take into account all that 20/20 hindsight info that comes out when media reports on it that was not available at the time of the incident.

These people like to pass moral judgment based on information they themselves did not even know about until after the fact. A split second hesitation can lead to a person being killed, whether it the suspect, officer or public.

Forming a moral / ethical judgment based on information after the fact is problematic and only reinforces to those who don't understand / refuse to see it from the other side of the fence how these situations play out. Being forced to make a decision based on available info AT THE TIME of the incident is not the same as making a decision based on info AFTER THE FACT.

they are not comparable or even compatible.

hence the reason scotus established the rules like they did.

Even the video causes an issue by those who view it and decide what the officers actions would have been. Just because they view it does not mean that is the exact same thing viewed by the officer. they also ignore the fact that not all officers are able to recover from discharging their weapon that resulted in a death, whether justified or not. People can accuse all they want and can make claims on what they would do if there however -

until they are in that situation and act, they have absolutely no idea what they would have done or how those actions would affect them mentally.

People have a bad habit of forming their position based on info not available at the time of the incident. No matter how much I try to raise this issue, its simply ignored.

reply to post by Xcathdra

No matter how much I try to raise this issue, its simply ignored.

Instead of flat out disagreeing with you on this quoted point, I would rather ask, "Then why do you persist?"

Best advice an LEO can offer: Never EVER call the cops. Too often there is a negative outcome.

What the unwashed masses fail to realize is how close we are to being policed by a force which is incapable of moral values. And, it is their argumentativeness (I think I just made up a new word) which is the approaching light in the tunnel.

Snarl
Instead of flat out disagreeing with you on this quoted point, I would rather ask, "Then why do you persist?"

Because people will make comments like the one you made below

Snarl
Best advice an LEO can offer: Never EVER call the cops. Too often there is a negative outcome.

This assessment is based on paranoia and nothing more. The number of encounters with law enforcement routinely end without death. Since those items are not newsworthy, they show the opposite end of the spectrum - the exception to the rule.

People view that, think they know better, then spout off while making comments that are not supported by fact, like you just did about negative outcomes.

I respond to those posts because not everyone is paranoid. Others are able to understand why an action was taken or why the law allows an action to be taken. Raising those points does nothing but show the side of the fence a lot of people refuse to look at / consider.

What is a better way to fix something?
To educate yourself on the topic and to understand the fundamental elements behind it in an effort to isolate the areas they think should be fixed.

or...

To refuse to learn while making comments that are based on ignorance and paranoia while trying to force fix a situation that wont fix anything at all and will cause more harm than good?

Snarl
What the unwashed masses fail to realize is how close we are to being policed by a force which is incapable of moral values. And, it is their argumentativeness (I think I just made up a new word) which is the approaching light in the tunnel.

Yet another uniformed opinion based on paranoia and a lack of understanding.

thank you for proving my point.

Please explain, specifically, what you think the problem is, what the laws are that "cause" those problems, and the manner in which you would "fix" the problem. Please take into account existing laws and court rulings, and how your changes would affect those key areas.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Son, let me shplain sumpin' to ya. My badge is attached to a plaque on my "I Love Me" wall. Anytime the ATS staff wants to review a photograph of it, they have only to ask. You ... will have to take it on faith (with your holier than thou attitude) that mine is an opinion formed by 17 years of experience in the field.

Now bugger off. The rest of my day is reserved for grown-ups.

reply to post by Another_Nut


Not going to quote your whole response BUT...

from your link:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that "…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force."

That is the initial basis for any investigation of Civil Rights, then it branches out into other, was it racial, was it a cop having a bad day and taking it out on the first person he saw, was it X was it Y, was it Z? but there is a higher standard that they must meet to beat those charges, it's not just "hey Mr Ossifer you did good shootin that kid in the back" it's "Hand over your f'in gun dirtbag and then prepare for us to go through your WHOLE life with a fine toothed comb ad see what little things from when you were 4 we can dig up k?"

A police Officer involved in a shooting where a claim of a Civil Rights Violation has been brought up, would wish they were dead from the amount of rear end crawling we do... sorry no.. in the end they do NOT get away with more just because they are cops, I wish to hell you could understand that and not think of things in Alex Jones speak...

reply to post by vkey08


Physical- the stop sticks
Chemical-skipped
The next two happened at once
Electronic/impact - that would be the tazer and the bags

At this point the subject is surrendering . No further use of force is warranTed

Unless you are a bloodthirsty officer

Then you forget about apprehension of the suspect

And go straight to fire arm

Remember the physical/electonic happens in seconds

But the killing shots come after surrender

Please read better

Eta

" The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in Data Collection on Police Use of Force,states that "… the legal test of excessive force…is whether the police officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose…"

Once your. hands are on the hood and you are surrendering the legitimacy of shooting a man in the back is gone

please tell me what legit police purpose that officer was serving

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

It would appear everyone in uniform was aware of the execution about to happen as evidenced by all the officers behind the subject suddenly clearing out and running away from behind him (line of fire).