Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
You're taking my post completely out of context. If you want to take my words literally that's on you. My understanding is that officers need to be trained to a higher standard that doesn't result in them whipping out their weapon at every turn. There's so many alternatives. Rubber bullets, tasers, police batons etc etc.
For the record, I would consider rape a life/death situation. Simply because it is one. You never know what could happen and so do whatever you have to do.
But look at the video above and tell me if that is the equivalent of a policewoman getting gangbanged.
What context, your statement didn't have any qualifiers.
Fine, rape aside, what about being assaulted?
What about a suspect running away and then fights with you when you catch up?
What about a suspect running away, fight with you, and gaining control of your taser?
What about a suspect running away, fight with you, gain control of your taser, and shoot you (accidentally or not, you have no idea)?
At what point is it OK for the police to use deadly force?
Weather any of the above happened in this case is not the question, your statement was about police in general not about this particular case.
I want to review it. I still haven't made up my mind.
I apologize if I fail to clarify what I meant to convey. I should have used the phrase "to retrace to the scene of the traffic stop and unfold the sequence once again" with Scott not running away. My contention is that Slager probably would have shot him on the spot if a scuffle occurred right at the scene of the traffic stop, as some would have argued that Slager is well within his right to do just that.
What context, your statement didn't have any qualifiers.
Fine, rape aside, what about being assaulted?
What about a suspect running away and then fights with you when you catch up?
What about a suspect running away, fight with you, and gaining control of your taser?
What about a suspect running away, fight with you, gain control of your taser, and shoot you (accidentally or not, you have no idea)?
At what point is it OK for the police to use deadly force?
Weather any of the above happened in this case is not the question, your statement was about police in general not about this particular case.
The context is "this particular situation". That's why it was posted "in this thread."
My statement wasn't all encompassing for every incident that a police officer might come across. There are a hundred other different situations that you could come up. You're making up an argument and then attempting to defeat it. Classic straw-man if I've ever seen one.
The standard I'm trying to argue is that you don't shoot a suspect in the back that is fleeing away from you. THAT is a situation where there is no "life-threatening danger" present.
What about a suspect running away and then fights with you when you catch up?
Use your police-baton/taser to subdue him. or better yet, shoot him in the leg, wait for backup and the paramedics. good ol' police work. Just because you get knucked doesn't mean you have to whip out your gun and blow his brains out.
What about a suspect running away, fight with you, and gaining control of your taser?
If there is no other option, let him get away. There is no reason for you to suspect that you're letting a mass murderer escape every single time someone flees. I think the old saying "innocent until proven guilty" is very applicable in these situations.
What about a suspect running away, fight with you, gain control of your taser, and shoot you (accidentally or not, you have no idea)?
same as above
At what point is it OK for the police to use deadly force?
It's ok for them to use deadly force when the situation warrants it. Themselves, or someone else, could possibly be injured badly or even die. Then it is okay for them to pull out their weapon. Being trigger happy and or failing to follow proper procedure is no excuse.
....retrace to the scene of the traffic stop and unfold the sequence once again" with Scott not running away. My contention is that Slager probably would have shot him on the spot if a scuffle occurred right at the scene of the traffic stop, as some would have argued that Slager is well within his right to do just that.
"as some would have argued"???
.."Slager probably would have shot him on the spot"......????
Who .... on this board? And if so, what post .... link?
I'll start with me ..... I NEVER DID.
Next?
Before you begin that hollow venture ...
What do unsubstantiated, speculations contribute to an analysis of the reality?
You know very well no way Slager would be that lenient.
And how do you "know very well" he wouldn't? More speculation?
Do you know Slager? Ever talked to him? Ever served with him?
Do you know how many citations he writes on an average every month?
Do you know how many warnings he writes on an average every month?
Do you know how many verbal warnings he gives on an average every month?
Do you even know what his department's police is on "warnings"?
Shooting someone "in the leg" ... is "deadly force"!
So you're saying shooting someone in the back (8 times) is the same as shooting someone in the leg?
hmmm any other nuggets of wisdom you would like to throw out there Captain Dipshit?
I think the old saying "innocent until proven guilty" is very applicable in these situations.
Fortunately for the law abiding citizens in the United States the standard in the U.S. Constitution, as applied by the local, state, and federal judicial systems, is "PROBABLE CAUSE."
Which I have every reason to believe you would insist upon if you were a victim of someone tasering your ass and the investigating officer told you that he could not arrest the person, because he wasn't "proven guilty" yet!
"Use your police-baton/taser to subdue him. or better yet, shoot him in the leg, wait for backup and the paramedics. good ol' police work."
Apparently the sarcasm in that sentence flew straight over your giant DOOFUS head. Nothing like an idiot huffing and puffing himself up only to look like a bigger idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Fortunately for the law abiding citizens in the United States the standard in the U.S. Constitution, as applied by the local, state, and federal judicial systems, is "PROBABLE CAUSE."
Which I have every reason to believe you would insist upon if you were a victim of someone tasering your ass and the investigating officer told you that he could not arrest the person, because he wasn't "proven guilty" yet!
Please go sit on the bench ....
Probable cause is applicable to warrants, searches, arrests, crimes etc. Are you saying that the perp fleeing the scene was probable cause for the officer to shoot him down? There is no "probable cause standard" that allows officers to shoot citizens and then determine their guilt DOOFUS. You are a bigger fucking DOOFUS than I first pegged you to be, you big fucking DOOFUS.
You actually might be the biggest amateur on this board. It seems your "years of experience" hasn't done anything for you. There is no bench for people like you. I wouldn't trust you to be the waterboy, you would be very likely to fuck that up.
.."Slager probably would have shot him on the spot"......????
Who .... on this board? And if so, what post .... link?
I'll start with me ..... I NEVER DID.
You left out "if a scuffle occurred right at the scene of the traffic stop." You are not trying to argue that Slager got no right to shot him on the spot even if a scuffle with Scott occurred at the scene of the traffic stop?
Julius Wilson would be so ecstatic by your proclamation. I am not joking, indeed.
Wilson "almost got shot" on the spot. They are not my words. One of the arresting officers, Brad Woods, will bear my witness.
