[Ajon412]

This was from an ON DUTY incident......The indictment isn't a surprise....It is the Bronx....I wish him luck and as always, let the FACTS play out.....Take some time and read the comments.


http://www.policeone.com/use-of-forc...atal-shooting/

[Hack]

After reading that I would not want to be involved in the Bronx, period.

[JAS104]

My father worked at the 47th precinct in the Bronx. Good luck to the LEO. Can't imagine what he's going through.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[merlynusn]

That sucks for the officer. I'm waiting on the whole story. But since the officer had to have given a statement, how did they charge him with manslaughter? If he admitted the guy didn't have a gun, it should be murder. Being told the guy has a weapon and if he reached for something, then he should have been no true billed.

[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

[DonGlock26]

I've had enough of these blood sacrifices to the PC gods.

_

[JAS104]

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

+1. Its really a shame. He'll get some support from the PBA, but its gonna be a tough fought battle against the office of Robert Johnson.

[Ajon412]

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

This is pretty much it........

[Snowman92D]

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.

"Degenerates" is a mild way of putting it, too.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Ajon412

This was from an ON DUTY incident......The indictment isn't a surprise....It is the Bronx....I wish him luck and as always, let the FACTS play out.....Take some time and read the comments.


http://www.policeone.com/use-of-forc...atal-shooting/

I think it was because Sharpton was involved and there was no gun found at the residence.

[FL Airedale]

The Miami cannibal didn't have a weapon and I haven't heard any complaints about the officer that shot him.

Unless that officer admitted something really stupid when he was being debriefed, or there was a witness that called it murder, I don't see how they can charge him.

Just because the BG is unarmed doesn't necessarily make it a bad shoot.

[SCSU74]

Shouldn't matter if a gun was found. He ha reliable info from other officers that the subj was armed and was in pursuit. He may have pulled a wallet out, who knows? If I'm chasing a subj I believe to be armed in a drug area and they're running trough a home if he turns quick and has something in his hands I'm not going to stand there and ask politely what he has in his hands. Reverse side of this story is the officer doubting the subj has a gun, and ends up getting shot and it's a non-story as far as the media is concerned.


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

[JAS104]

Originally Posted by SCSU74

Shouldn't matter if a gun was found. He ha reliable info from other officers that the subj was armed and was in pursuit. He may have pulled a wallet out, who knows? If I'm chasing a subj I believe to be armed in a drug area and they're running trough a home if he turns quick and has something in his hands I'm not going to stand there and ask politely what he has in his hands. Reverse side of this story is the officer doubting the subj has a gun, and ends up getting shot and it's a non-story as far as the media is concerned.


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

+1 . Very well said. It's really Effed up that the DAs office goes out for blood so often with the police. Whatever the outcome he has my support


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[RocPO]

Originally Posted by FL Airedale

The Miami cannibal didn't have a weapon and I haven't heard any complaints about the officer that shot him.

Unless that officer admitted something really stupid when he was being debriefed, or there was a witness that called it murder, I don't see how they can charge him.

Just because the BG is unarmed doesn't necessarily make it a bad shoot.

Which makes perfect sense, along with SCSU's post. But NYC, and particularly the Bronx and Brooklyn DA's offices, don't see it from the officer's perspective. They see it from the skell perspective. You are guilty until proven innocent if you're a cop. Why anyone would do anything proactive as an NYPD officer in either of those two boroughs is beyond me.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by FL Airedale

The Miami cannibal didn't have a weapon and I haven't heard any complaints about the officer that shot him.

Unless that officer admitted something really stupid when he was being debriefed, or there was a witness that called it murder, I don't see how they can charge him.

Just because the BG is unarmed doesn't necessarily make it a bad shoot.

True, but being under a microscope is still a pain in the back.

[txleapd]

Thoughts are prayers for the officer involved. It's a ****** situation made all the worse by politics.

[Cav]

police said an observation team identified Graham as a potential suspect and radioed to other officers that he appeared to be armed with a pistol.

two police officers in plain clothes but wearing NYPD raid jackets pulled up and yelled at a man — apparently Graham — "Police! Don't move!"

An officer positioned behind the shooter reported seeing Graham run toward a bathroom, possibly to flush away some marijuana. He also heard Haste yell, "Show me your hands!" and "Gun! Gun!" before a shot rang out, police said.

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...

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Hack

True, but being under a microscope is still a pain in the back.

Unfortunately, that's NOT where they place the microscope...

What's the officer supposed to do in that situation? Advised he's armed and dangerous, reaches for his waistband while fleeing....

Is the officer expected to wait to verify what he's pulling out of his waistband just in case the suspect is only planning on pointing his dick at the officer???

Randy

[msu_grad_121]

I love when I'd use the term "furtive movement" and have ADA's and defense attorneys look at me like I've got three heads. That's exactly what it sounds like this idiot did, after being told to stop and put his hands up.

Also, and I'm not 100% sure on this, but doesn't information from another officer that a suspect has committed a crime and/or is armed hold water, from a case law standpoint? I mean, if that's what the initial contact officer put out, I'd say this officer should be covered, especially if he can articulate the furtive movement thing.

Then again, it happens everywhere that DAs and SAs bow to political pressure, and when the race pimps show up, you know that's what they're bringing to bear. Sickening...

[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.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Unfortunately, that's NOT where they place the microscope...

What's the officer supposed to do in that situation? Advised he's armed and dangerous, reaches for his waistband while fleeing....

Is the officer expected to wait to verify what he's pulling out of his waistband just in case the suspect is only planning on pointing his dick at the officer???

Randy

Not in our case. But the maxim is true, if you obviously have saved the day you will be made a hero, but one mess up ...

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Philo Beddoe

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.

Too bad it apparently doesn't apply to cops. Oh wait....

Did someone need the definition of irony? How about fail?

Randy

[RocPO]

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.

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.

[Hack]

Well, now that you have taught him his school lesson, it seems he has taken off. That's good.

[blueiron]

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.

Vote Democrat, since you're grossly more prejudiced than the people you indict.