In places like LA, they carry them in the trunks of vehicles etc., and if they have time to deploy them, they will use them. Like they should have in this incident, since they had plenty of time.
Posted on 11/25/2015 11:57:19 AM PST by IChing
I’ve given you links to read the law. In your position you should do that before you ever come to Oklahoma. Maybe its different where you are.
Who do you suppose wrote the article that you either didn’t read, didn’t comprehend, or both? You haven’t had the relevant training, btw.
Any intentional discharge of a firearm with respect to a suspect is a use of deadly force, even if the target is missed. Legally any use of deadly force must be justified by law and circumstances. An intentional “shooting to wound” is still a use of deadly force and must fit the same legal criteria as if the suspect dies. BTW, suspects can die of a wound thru shock or blood loss.
I know the role that perception plays in cases like this, but in the legal sense, one round or 16 amounts to the same legally.
One must ask.. does Laquan have blog?
Is Laquan trying to divert traffic to his blog?
In places like LA, they carry them in the trunks of vehicles etc., and if they have time to deploy them, they will use them. Like they should have in this incident, since they had plenty of time.
Here is part of the code ... I've clipped it from the website I gave you a link to. It is what it is... whether we think it is a correct interpretation or not. Premeditation is deciding to kill someone, and then doing it. It does not require planning, lots of thought, etc..
May I suggest you have a nice Thanksgiving. I am not in the mood to have this argument. Let’s just call it a day, have a drink, and eat turkey.
Exactly. Malice. Not self-defense or defense of others, which also require thought. You have to learn to be precise.
Read the article and watch the video. Pay attention.
You have to put yourself inside his head for premeditation. There has to be proof he decided to kill. That’s hard to do. It’s just as likely he panicked in the heat of the moment and emptied his magazine. We don’t know.
Based on the video... I think self defense will be difficult to argue. Defense of others? Who specifically? The public at large?? Whatever.
You have to decide it was his intent to kill in every single case. Shooting him 16 times will make it tough to argue that it was an accident.
why not 3 foot batons?
The guy was walking away. After he was shot, he fell to the ground. It appears the “threat” ended at that point. And this cop had 16 complaints? No excuse.
Now that's a thought that makes sense and is consistent with the law.
You obviously missed what I said at the end about juries, media, public, etc...especially juries.
Oh, the horror, he used “excessive” deadly force after he’d already fatally shot him....
I’ve stated my opinion. I’m not going to spend time arguing on the internet about it.
No, the problem is that you misrepresented the law. Self-defense is intentional also, but without malice. Your sloppy blanket definition regarding thought is the issue.
The part that you are missing is that the number of shots will be used to establish intent. It will be difficult to argue that he did not intend to kill the guy when he shot him 16 times. So now you have to watch the video and determine if it was self defense, defense of someone else etc. To make the shoot justifiable. If you can’t come up with some really good reason to justify killing this guy... something that makes sense to a jury, and is consistent with the applicable law... it is what it is guy. I know you’re the expert. But the internet is filled with people who went to jail for a long time for lots less than shooting someone 16 times.
They could have easily deployed a number of very effective non-lethal weapons on the suspect. They had lots of time here.
See the female at #105
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.