Posted on 06/02/2020 5:07:34 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
The usual suspects will soon be on her. Crump will come down from Georgia. The rest will come out of the woodwork. You can expect the Rev.s to dip their beak also.
“The law is clear and unambiguous.”
Really?
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
Obama’s sons?
““It appears that authorities did deem the incident a justified shooting””
I lost the full sentence below.
It appears .. Lol
based on:
1. Dead guy had a criminal history. Really?
2. Other guy was charged. She dan still be charged. Keyboard jockey is ignorant of the law.
It appears that authorities did deem the incident a justified shooting, as Coleman, who – along with Singleton – had a prior criminal history, was charged with second-degree felony murder and armed robbery. The murder charge was due to the fact that he was committing a felony while Singleton was killed.
She will not be prosecuted and she will not be sent to prison. Don't like that you even posted such a thing.
1. You didn’t address the item I quoted from you, that the law is clear and. unambiguous.
2. It is Tennessee v. Gardner
3. They ruled the cop was not justified.
4. Please source your stated ruling.
Garner
Florida has nothing to do with it. The Feds will find some retarded reason that she violated the thugs civil rights. All it needs is for some grievance pimps to get on the case.
Cops can’t do. it:
The Court of Appeals concluded that the rule set out in the Model Penal Code “accurately states Fourth Amendment limitations on the use of deadly force against fleeing felons.” 710 F.2d, at 247. The relevant portion of the Model Penal Code provides:
“The use of deadly force is not justifiable . . . unless (i) the arrest is for a felony; and (ii) the person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a peace officer; or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized to act as a peace officer, and (iii) the actor believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and (iv) the actor believes that (1) the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force; or (2) there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily harm if his apprehension is delayed.” American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 3.07(2)(b) (Proposed Official Draft 1962).
That’s a 4 year old story!
The full extent of the damage from the Kenyanesian Usurpation is still unknown.
I think the USSC ruling also applies to private citizens:
In a 6-3 decision, Justice Byron R. White wrote for the majority affirming the court of appeals decision. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force unless it is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of violence to the officer or the community.
Careful now, or you will get sued in England!
All her personal information was in the car and the carjackers were armed, even driving away, they still were a tthreat to her family’s safety.
If she shot at them while they were driving away, she might be in trouble.
Dang, I did not know that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.