Replies

With respect, Mark Furhman is an entertainer and has never been an expert on deadly force. You might not like it, but your understanding of the law is just wrong. Your contention that an officer (or anyone else) has to positively identify a weapon beyond a shadow of a doubt before using deadly force is simply misguided. That has never been the standard in the United States, nor should it be. I’ve provided you with jury instructions, case examples and a use of force video. You cite to an entertainer and a convicted perjurer. I haven’t seen his interview, but if he is saying what you are suggesting, he’s just wrong. If you truly want to educate yourself on this topic, and want to read a book written for the lay person, I would suggest the excellent “Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right To Self Defense” written by Massad Ayoob. Unlike Furhman, Ayoob IS a use of force expert, and is probably one of the most qualified use of force experts in the country. The book is easy to read, and if you value the Second Amendment and the inalienable right to self preservation, I’d suggest you pick it up. If you do so, you will find that your knowledge about the use of deadly force, and what to do in the immediate aftermath of an encounter, if God forbid, you should ever have to use deadly force, is quite a bit different from what internet folklore teaches.

Ha Ha. You're kidding right? He was an LAPD detective, not a beat cop and in California where this took place no less. Detectives are going to know a thing or two about use of force policy and law. And the perjury charges were expunged. You are correct that is just his opinion but like I said he is usually pretty even handed and is very defensive of law enforcement so when he comes down like he did I would not take that as a good sign that use of force policy was followed or the shooting justified.

I'll update you after the charges are filed and trust me they will be. These officers are in serious serious trouble. Massad Ayoob, do you really think I don't know who that is? Sorry, I know you don't know me but I just think that's kinda funny. Think about it and you will figure out what I mean. Anyway Ayoob's focus is on the civi side not so much law enforcement.

I forgot to add. You know my position on this but even I was a little surprised Furhman really did not offer any defense for these guys at all. I would have thought he might say well it was dark and this officers could have mistaken the phone for a gun, bla bla bla but not at all. He clearly thought they had the upper hand and should have waited to assess the situation before firing. What is going to cook their goose is not pausing at all before firing and the fact they both fired a total of 20 rounds. This guy was given almost zero chance. I'm pretty sure anyone on this board if they were in his shoes would be just as dead. No one is going to react to "show me your hands" and immediately drop their cell phone at the same time. These guys are toast.

Replying to myself. It's late, lol.

Here's another thread going on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3643316/posts?page=25

Some are trying to claim this was racial oriented which is just silly. Furhman answered that question very well saying first the officers were called to the scene so they had no discretion on the suspect. Second there was one white cop and one black cop and both acted exactly the same making it very difficult to claim this was racially motivated.

Of course it had nothing to do with race but the usual suspects are going to claim such. Which is a big mistake on their part because in my opinion they have a major beef with this shooting but it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with unjustified use of force.

If you get a chance to see Furhman on Laura's show take a look. He made a very fair assessment. One thing I did not mention he said about having a problem with a "property crime" escalating so fast to lethal force levels. That should not have happened and is one of the points I originally made. The police were called to someone damaging property, expecting a violent offender was unreasonable as no person had been harmed or threatened. So they spot the guy and he runs a bit, people that are vandalizing tend to run when they see the police, that's still not any excuse to escalate to deadly force. Then when they have him in the backyard "show me your hands, gun gun gun, bang bang bang" not even a second pause to assess the threat level or the object in the suspects hands.