Aren't all police officers carrying tasers nowadays?
There is no requirement to prove that serious bodily harm happened, it is a reasonable fear of it happening by the person being beaten. Which would mean that person against another person who believes as the beating is taking place could cause serious harm or death can use deadly force. It isn't a I received serious bodily harm, it is that I reasonable feared I would. That is the standard.
Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose
You are for small government? Funding? The police and other civic services are casualties of city budgets always.
Example: If the city of Baltimore ask the state of Maryland for funding and the Governor and legislature refuses. The city of Baltimore has to slash police training and salaries.
Fyi: Example above is from season 4 of The Wire
Which isn't how the standards work. You have to have a reasonable belief that it's likely you'll face that same harm. Not that it's possible. Likely. And that a reasonable person would similarly feel that way.
No, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that outliers are outliers, and do not describe likely outcomes.you're basically ignoring the outliers and saying it can't happen, therefore it's not justifiable.
That's what I've been saying all along, so I don't see what you think you're contradicting.
An unarmed assault doesn't present a likely risk of serious bodily harm. That's the point.
Candy.
Nah, an ordinary police officer carry the usual. Gun, pepper spray, expandable baton, etc. Tasers are also part of their equipment in some areas which means they are carrying two forms of non-lethal weapons, 3 if you count the baton.
The point is that they have options if they don't want to use lethal force.
Last edited by zephid; 2016-10-07 at 10:03 PM.
''Bleeding heart leftist'' nowadays : someone who don't scream that petty criminals should be shot on sight.
Then again, the usual crowd would, to look tough and manly, utters that the actual Nazis were liberals, since they sometimes made kangourou courts before shooting hostages and we all known that ''trial'' and ''laws'' are for ''weak liberal beta cucks'' compared to ''typing on a random board that you have a very big gun''
Tony, every now and then you just lead with simple statements and leave it at that. You never want to look at the BIG picture.
Lets stay with Baltimore. Obviously a very poor city, thus no tax base to meet its budget. It has two choices: 1) It can seek stated and federal funding. I would think that people would look at that as BIG government spending. 2) They can cut the budget. You honestly cannot say that police and other civil service fall victim to that.
At what point during an altercation with a criminal does assault become "life-threatening". Is there a moment halfway through the ground and pound where you can make the distinction? And just LUL at people comparing bar fights to police confrontations with criminals.
Just put yourself in the cops shoes. Criminal on drugs, whooping your ass, would you be willing to wager he's going to stop?
A sister? hmmm, ive got 5 already....but sure why not..my bro in law is single...I can hook you up
- - - Updated - - -
I'm from Baltimore originally, grew up there, trust me you don't need to tell me how poor it is. I could get into how it became poor (left leadership for the past 40 years) but that's a whole other matter.
There are ways to cut the budget without cutting police. Lets not get off topic though.
- - - Updated - - -
Hey, the guy was driving the car to a bible study and was on speed to help him stay awake for the whole thing...very exciting stuff.
I'd like to know what sarahtashers definition of "petty" is....was alton sterling a "petty" criminal?
Again, all it takes is the belief that the requirements be met. Not that they actually be met. And to quote from the source you linked,
“bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.”
Any of the bolded items can easily occur from getting the shit beat out of you. So again, in her case, had she used lethal force to stop the assault, it would have been justified. Period. We can go around all day and you can play semantics until your hair falls out. The reality is that any objective investigation would summarize it like this: Female police officer attempting to subdue a violent male subject discharges her firearm in self-defense, resulting in the death of the subject. Conclusion: No wrong-doing on the part of the officer.
Edit: We don't have all the details so I will say this: My point is being made under the assumption that the other two officers had not arrived yet, etc. If the subject was assaulting her and her fellow officers were there and in the process of detaining him, that's a different scenario.
Last edited by Mistame; 2016-10-07 at 10:18 PM.