[4949shooter]

Originally Posted by Philo Beddoe

Evidently I have stumbled onto an LEO forum. I thought this was a Glock forum.

It is beyond me how so many people, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, can ummarily ignore it when a fellow cop is involved.

I saw nothing in the article that suggests that the cop didn't shoot a thug unjustifiably. How can you defend his actions with what little we know.

There is this little concept called presumption of innocence, handed down thru 230 years of English jurisprudence. Try it sometimes; it's a pretty nifty concept.

There obviously is more to the story. My 23+ years of police experience tells me that.

By the way, your presumption of innocence comment is right on the money. The officer is innocent until proven guilty.

[JAS104]

Originally Posted by RocPO

Evidently, you can feel free to stumble back out of COP TALK (which should have been a clue to you that it's the LE section of the forum.) You're so far out of your lane that you can't even see the off ramp.

Let's put this to you in simple terms there skippy. Mope is observed by other officers who state mope has a gun. (This is NYC. Civilian ownership of firearms is verboten, and you can save yourself the trouble of taking out that soapbox) Officers follow mope into house and begin pursuit, at which time mope runs. Mope is found hiding in his residence. He refused to follow simple directions to stop moving and show his hands. He failed to do so. Given the information that went out over the radio from other Officers about his possession of a firearm, it was reasonable to believe that he was reaching for a firearm. The Officer involved ended the threat. Is that clear enough for you? Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has held that this judgment is made "from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." (Graham v Connor)

Graham v Connor considerations - 1) the seriousness of the crime being committed (possession of a firearm [Criminal Possession of a Weapon]). 2) Officer reasonably believes suspect is a threat - reaching for something that you can't see. 3) attempting to escape or actively resisting arrest - already a foot pursuit and continued non compliance.

+1 . Very well spoken


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Jameson4all]

Dancing in the street? I can only imagine that was a jab at the police department, fueled only by ignorance and disrespect for law enforcement. My prayers go to this officer and his family.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Philo Beddoe

Evidently I have stumbled onto an LEO forum. I thought this was a Glock forum.

It is beyond me how so many people, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, can ummarily ignore it when a fellow cop is involved.

I saw nothing in the article that suggests that the cop didn't shoot a thug unjustifiably. How can you defend his actions with what little we know.

There is this little concept called presumption of innocence, handed down thru 230 years of English jurisprudence. Try it sometimes; it's a pretty nifty concept.

Please tell us you are a construction worker, or Wal-Mart salesman or something like that, and that you have absolutely nothing to do with the justice system in any shape form or fashion (or I am going to be more disillusioned than I was before I read this).

[panzer1]

Originally Posted by RocPO

This is the Bronx. The DA there is notoriously anti cop. This dude is being thrown under the bus to appease the degenerates that inhabit that area.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Yes I bet you are right. I feel for the cop not that low life. F-him!!

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Cav

I would say the situation was messed up, but the officer did as most are trained. Bottom line is he did his job and really did nothing wrong based on the situation at hand.

I dont see a crime, I see a bad situation. IMHO criminal charges are wrong, but some action should be taken.

Now if the the police asked the suspect to stop and not move and he just stood there and was shot, yea there might be a crime. When you flee, evade, tamper with evidence, and make your self a risk, you make a situation that puts everyone at risk.

When police shot fleeing felons, we had much less felonies...

Well, I had to correct this thought. It is obviously Sharpton at work. Are there any people other than the cops and attorneys who speak without a foreign accent in New York anymore?

[Ajon412]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

The only good thing is that he is Black and shot a Black guy. Can you imagine the uproar that the "Sharptons" would have caused if the leo had been a White cop.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/n..._content=Local

The copper is white and the perp is black....If the copper and perp were both black, I don't think we be here..This is ALWAYS Sharpton's rationale for his actions....I know, I was SHOCKED as you when race wasn't mentioned in the headline....

"The family is grieving. Nothing is going to bring their son back. This is the first step to getting justice but there are no winners,” Sharpton said outside court. There is only ONE person to blame for this outcome and it's the dead perp...

"We are not trying to seek revenge. We are trying to seek justice.”

BS !!!!!

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Ajon412

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/n..._content=Local

The copper is white and the perp is black....If the copper and perp were both black, I don't think we be here..This is ALWAYS Sharpton's rationale for his actions....I know, I was SHOCKED as you when race wasn't mentioned in the headline....



BS !!!!!

No wonder. The first pic I saw had a Black cop. Now it makes absolute sense. Race mongerer Sharpton at work. Poor cop chasing a drug dealer and will be treated like a hood..