Man killed by Vegas police was shot in back

Mercury News ^

[Chet 99]

LAS VEGAS—The Clark County coroner says a 32-year-old man killed by Las Vegas police on July 1 was shot in the back.

...

The coroner says an initial report that Hambleton died of a gunshot wound to the chest was a "clerical error."

[library user]

Actually, the first shot only injured him. It was the pit bull who came along about five minutes later who finished him off.

[americanophile]

cops

[South40]

I heard he was killed by an SUV.

[MichiganConservative]

Hey, if the cops tied the guy up, beat him with wood for 10 minutes, stabbed him with pitchforks, and then shot him 45 times in the head, he had it coming. Cops can do no wrong, you know.

[Las Vegas Ron]

More info here from ReviewJournel

Cops in this town have been screwing up a bit lately.

[library user]

LOL. Where did that come from?!

[WayneS]

I heard he was bitten by a snake, then tasered, then shot in the back by the police and THEN hit by an SUV.

[WayneS]

...and the reason they shot him 45 times in the head is because they ran out of bullets.

[JLS]

A woman who said she and her husband saw the Hambleton shooting was twice told by police to leave the scene.

Clearly these criminals trying to cover up their criminal actions must be fired at a minimum.

[NV Lawdog]

So much for innocent until proven guilty. .

[Filo]

So cops lying through their teeth to get away with murder is now a clerical error?

ROFL.

[MHGinTN]

If the perp/dead perp were holding a weapon and turned to face a fellow lawdog behind him, I’d shoot the prick in the back, too!

[MHGinTN]

Course, if a dead perp tunred to attack a fellow lawdog behind him, I suppose I might actually get my feet moving away from the scene asap.

[USNBandit]

According to state law, a police officer can, after giving a warning, use deadly force to prevent an escape if there is probable cause to believe the person "has committed a felony which involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm or the use of deadly force" or "poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

I'm not sure if that state law is in keeping with a Supreme Court decision. I think it was Garner vs. Tennesse that pretty much ended the shooting of fleeing felons, unless you can articulate a threat the person poses to others. A bank robber with a habit of shooting people during the robberies or a guy that refuses to stop because he says he has unfinished business with a possible victim.

[NV Lawdog]

Tennessee vs. Garner holds that when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if 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. I, and I’m pretty sure anyone else on this forum, was not present when this incident occurred and therefore cannot speak as to what the facts and circumstances are surrounding this incident. And for us, who routinely bash on the Liberal media, to rely on the newspapers to provide us the information to make an opinion or to speak to the officers actions is not realistic.

[packrat35]

There’s an active subset on FR (mostly cops themselves) who will defend ANYTHING a cop does. He is being sarcastic towards those people who will show up shortly to defend this.

[USNBandit]

If you are from Nevada, do you know if the law really says you can shoot a fleeing felon if it is suspected that he caused serious bodily harm to a victim?

If the guy got in a fight with an officer and the officer was getting beat bad, exhaustion in a prolonged fight is a justification for deadly force. The cop bashers may not like it, but that is the legal precedence.

[NV Lawdog]

Here is the NRS regarding justifiable homicide by an officer: NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under his command and in his aid, in the following cases:

1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.

2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

3. When necessary:

(a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;

(b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or

(c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.

[1911 C&P § 131; RL § 6396; NCL § 10078]—(NRS A 1975, 323; 1993, 931)