Posted on 05/03/2025 8:58:39 AM PDT by Fish Speaker
“I didn’t think LEO’s had to wait to be shot at.”
I think that you get one free shot in a Northern city. If you don’t get it, your family wins the lottery, minus 30% for the lawyers, of course.
The article says the perp was running TOWARDS another officer with a gun when he was shot. Yeah, the dude was running, trying to evade police during a criminal act; he refused to stop and drop his weapon; he was running-with that weapon- TOWARDS other officers who were trying to subdue him and was shot because of his actions.
The felon could have, at any time, unholstered the weapon and begun shooting at his pursuers.
It is not incumbent upon the police to wait until the perpetrator actually begins firing his weapon.
~~~~~
You don’t understand the situation. The felon’s pistol was in his hand as he ran.
Then you left out the all-important step, the felon POINTING his firearm at a cop. THAT would be a threat, but this felon never did that. The cops had the advantage that they could continuously point their firearms at the felon. Only if the felon raised his pistol to point it at them could his actions be considered a threat.
It’s a split-second decision which this officer was not qualified to make.
Oh, for God's sake...
Yes, this article would have gotten an ‘F’ in a ninth-grade composition class back when school were actually teaching.
I love the way you put it. 😄
Depends on the state you live in.
What idiot wrote that hradline. I need an ibuprofen.
I’m thinkin this guy wrote the article
Picture day means wiping the Bavarian cream off your mouth. Or is that pudding? I can’t tell
They will give him a manslaughter charge due to mitigating circumstances or mental duress. Or a lesser murder charge not subject to total life sentence. Not saying it is right, just stating reality!
Oh, don’t kid yourself. I know you are serious. I’m just damn glad you don’t make our laws.
They will give him a manslaughter charge due to mitigating circumstances or mental duress. Or a lesser murder charge not subject to total life sentence. Not saying it is right, just stating reality!
That’s not how the law works. If you are committing a felony and have a weapon, the police can AND WILL assume you intend to use that weapon and will act accordingly. It would be stupid for them to assume otherwise.
Did Kamala Harris write that headline?
LOL! I agree!
Drunk monkeys can do a better job than TV news journalists.
Intentionally arming yourself in order to run from police is not a threat.
________________________________
Rodney Hinton Jr. would tell you otherwise. If he had not intentionally armed himself before fleeing from the police which naturally resulted in his death.
I wish the Secret Service knew this as they indeed had armed snipers watching Crooks through their scopes for two minutes as he aimed and fired on President Trump.
And only after Crooks fired, did these agents return fire.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment.
From your source:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that the use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.: 563–7 Legal scholars have expressed support for this decision stating that the decision had "a strong effect on police behavior" and specifically that it can "influence police use of deadly force."
Ryan Hinton was not only a co-conspirator in a car theft, but was fleeing while armed.
While he may not have posed an immediate danger to the pursuing officers, he was armed and did pose a serious threat to them or others.
If I were sitting on a jury hearing this case, I would find in favor of the officers for the reason that an armed fleeing suspect could have opened fire at any time on the officers that could have seriously injured or killed them, not to mention that if he did fire on the officers and missed, those shots could have reasonably injured or killed innocent bystanders.
Oh, for God's sake...
I'm sick of it too.
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.