To what are you referring?Werz wrote: Or did everyone forget what happened three weeks ago in Cincinnati?
Are you referring to the Tensing "Mistrial" declaration? Are you suggesting that a "Mistrail" = Accountability = Justice?
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
To what are you referring?Werz wrote: Or did everyone forget what happened three weeks ago in Cincinnati?
I am not an officer of the law attempting to capture a person who had just assaulted me, and used a taser on me. Assault on an officer is a felony. Scott was not an innocent man who was unarmed. He was a man who had just committed a violent felony on a police officer.glocksmith wrote:MG380...IDK what other evidence cancels out video evidence...BUT if your home is ever broken into, and you startle the thief, then empty your mag into his back as he is running away and see how well you fare in court.
Articles I read this morning said that it was under the Tueller distance, at only about 17 feet.glocksmith wrote:Well, like Carmen implied in a previous post, I'm not sure how one justifies firing multiple shots into a retreating person's back at over 50 feet distant. No matter how you slice it up, it looks bad to me, and many other citizens as well. IBTL
There is always the choice of just letting them flee. However, what crime will the perpetrator escalate to next? They are already ballsy enough to take an officer's taser. The same though comes in vehicle pursuits. What are they running from? What are they trying to hide?carmen fovozzo wrote:As civilians we are to deescalate while LE escalate. There were other options this officer could of taken, but in his frame of mind, which was whizzed off and mad,justifiably so, there was still the option of letting him run till he was caught......had that LEO taken that option we wouldn't be debating it and he would be home permanently with his family.....he chose to shoot out of anger IMO..
Subject had a deadly weapon. You meet deadly weapon with deadly weapon. The video is just one perspective/view. The prosecution has every legal right to decide to retry if they do not like the verdict of the jury, which is made up of the people picked at random.carmen fovozzo wrote:Just guessing here but, this LEO did not look like any kind of slouch..He looked very capable of running this guy down IMO...he was angry and had cause to be...
Here's a dumb thought....if I was that angry I would want to get even with the BG up front and personally.....and by killing him would take away some of that joy..dumb I know..
In short, if the common citizen is prohibited from filling that felon's back full of lead, so is the LEO, no matter how tempted any of us may have been....the self-governing people allow any government they may organize to possess, by grant from them, only the limited and few powers with which the people think the particular government may sensibly be entrusted in order to serve their purposes without endangering their rights--their liberties or freedoms. These powers constitute the "just powers" of government, as the Declaration of Independence phrases it. This is in keeping with the primary purpose for which the people organize governments: to make and keep these unalienable rights secure and most beneficial to themselves and to Posterity--time without end.
Walter Scott had a weapon at the time he was shot?JediSkipdogg wrote:Subject had a deadly weapon. You meet deadly weapon with deadly weapon. The video is just one perspective/view. The prosecution has every legal right to decide to retry if they do not like the verdict of the jury, which is made up of the people picked at random.carmen fovozzo wrote:Just guessing here but, this LEO did not look like any kind of slouch..He looked very capable of running this guy down IMO...he was angry and had cause to be...
Here's a dumb thought....if I was that angry I would want to get even with the BG up front and personally.....and by killing him would take away some of that joy..dumb I know..
You have hit on a key issue: "It's gotta be murder!" These cases are too often charged based on public emotion, not upon the elements of the crime. The prosecutor placates the angry mob by charging what the mob wants, not what he or she can actually prove. And then the mob is shocked that things didn't turn out the way they expected.Mustang380gal wrote:There is more evidence than a video, and videos don't always tell the whole story.
Obviously, the jury thought so, too. Malice aforethought was supposed to be a defining factor to murder. They could not find that. There evidently were 5 who could not decide on manslaughter, either. Looks like they did not see a relaxed, casual attitude in the officer.