Posted on 09/22/2016 1:46:01 PM PDT by Trump20162020
The evidence is all over the video. And I assume they have statements from the other officers.
What reason did they have to believe the car was a bomb?
First-degree manslaughter can occur in any of the following ways:
A homicide committed without a design to cause death while engaging in the commission of a misdemeanor
A homicide committed without a design to effect death and in the heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon, or
A homicide committed unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the deceased to commit a crime, or after such an attempt failed
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-voluntary-manslaughter-law.html
Over-charged, just like Madame Mosby.
These are different times and guy was in the area.
First of all, there were no “instructions” heard, but there’s plenty of hear say.
The guy’s car stalled. He may have locked the car up and started to walk for help. We don’t know when the cops pulled up.
The guy slowly walks back toward his car with his hands up. How aggressive is that?
He places hands on the car. Next thing his right hand moves down slowly.
He gets tasered.
Then, because he reacts to the taser voltage, he gets shot dead.
End of story.
He was not armed.
He was not fleeing.
He was not charging the cops.
He was passive, if anything.
You don’t get to kill people over verbal communication commands in non-threat circumstances.
Shooting a person is only justified if one fears great bodily harm or death. In such a case, a person is justified in shooting to STOP the attack. There is no justification for an intent to kill. It is a coincidence of anatomy that the most effective way to use a gun to stop an attack also tends to be the most lethal.
If a person purposely shoots in a manner which shows less concern for stopping the attack, then one might conclude that the attack did not generate fear of great bodily harm or death.
Shooting at a person's leg might have the very undesirable and unintended consequence that the attack is not stopped, the shooter is then harmed or killed, and the wounded person bleeds out before an ambulance arrives; a lose-lose situation.
Warning shots are very difficult to justify. The bullet has to go somewhere. If one cop fires a warning shot, the others at the scene will empty their guns at whomever they believe is a threat. Warning shots are an expenditure of a resource that could end up being in short supply if a shootout does occur. Warning shots also demonstrate a reduced level of concern with great bodily harm or death at the hands of an attacker.
Pretty much.
Partly. She is still white so its still about that too.
Read yesterday Massachusettes SC says it is okay for blacks to run from cops for fear of profiling.
Insanity.
In my youth I have been put in the back of a police car in handcuffs. I had done nothing wrong. I obeyed their orders and the next morning I was free.
Do what the man with a gun and a badge tells you to do and you do not get dead. He may be a “no good son of a bitch” or he may be a good cop and most of them are good cops. Do what they say and you will be home in your bed the next night if you are not a bad man or bad women.
It is really that simple.
Tazed right before bullet or at roughly the same time depending on how you read the narrative.
IE, a natural born defender/fighter.
and the younger the tougher
And now she will be.
Yes, I understand all of that. However, when a cop wears a bulletproof vest it doesn't cover every area to prevent death, it just gives them a little better chance to survive. So by the same logic, a warning shot or a shot to an area less likely to kill may be a better solution.
Obviously 75% of the cops present never felt threatened enough to shoot which says a lot because normally if one fires they all fire is a common outcome.
And yet once again the internal investigation must not have been supportive of the cop at all or no charge would have been filed.
I forgot to add. I do not know if this was a good shoot or not. The courts will decide. Oklahoma courts are good courts. If this was a bad shoot this officer will feel the full weight of justice.
I hope I am wrong but this looks to me like a bad shoot. I also hope other evidence shows it was a good shoot.
It is. If she reasonably believed that she was in threat of imminent death or bodily harm, she has complete defense. If she was giving him commands, he disregarded, she tazed him, he still disregarded, and was reaching into his car.
Was she supposed to just stand there until he came out with a gun and started shooting?
He was probably full of PCP, which would make the taser useless. Another officer did tase him at the same time Officer Shelby fired her weapon.
Cops don’t shoot to disable, they shoot to stop.
Shelby is going to be crucified. It’s not going to matter if it was a good shoot or not.
Exactly. And when the autopsy shows he was out of his mind on PCP that will help her more.
It was a justified homicide.
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.