[jasongeo2]

What a dumb ass cop. And his excuse to pull him over was third brake light?? Doesnt matter if it does not work. Third brake lights are not required on any car, thats just optional if you have them. The only brake lights that need to be working are the normal ones.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Mufasa7 ↗

Agreed. And the nail that seals it is that perception matters, not some perfect objective reality as portrayed in a video camera. that means in the heat of the moment if the cop assessed this person to be a threat, he's justified.

A fat black guy starts running as a result of a routine traffic stop. He struggles with me, at one point and continues to run off after the physical confrontation. Cover and/or concealment is available in the direction he's running.

You better believe I feel he's a threat at that point. Time to let the bullets fly

Then you'd be in jail too

I love all these armchair definitions of what constitutes a justified shooting, this is great.

[Mufasa7]

^Another know it all overconfident in his position. No legal basis, completing ignorance of officer acquittal statistics in similar cases.

Unfortunately for you, the facts are on my side

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Mufasa7 ↗

^Another know it all overconfident in his position. No legal basis, completing ignorance of officer acquittal statistics in similar cases.

Unfortunately for you, the facts are on my side

Well, according to you whatever the cop feels is justified, is justified

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Legally it's based on proper use of force, what constitutes a threat worthy of deadly force, and the fact that numerous police involved in this incident lied in the report.

You can't shoot an unarmed person for running away, in the back. If you think that there's any kind of legal justification for that, you're a complete idiot.

[Mufasa7]

You have to do better than offhand name-calling to be convincing. Many police officers have shot unarmed suspects. Likewise with shooting from behind. The perception of threat precedent is more nuanced than that and yes, this officer has an excellent chance of having his charges seriously downgraded or dismissed altogether.

[Oswald2001]

'Unarmed' in this case, as it very often is, really comes down to 'failed in attempt to take officer's weapon while violently and criminally assaulting that officer'.

This is why the guy was justifiably killed.

Suicide By Cop.


Errabody know da roolz.

Errabody.

'Specially da low life Trayvon Martin Ghetto Trash Thugs.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Mufasa7 ↗

You have to do better than offhand name-calling to be convincing. Many police officers have shot unarmed suspects. Likewise with shooting from behind. The perception of threat precedent is more nuanced than that and yes, this officer has an excellent chance of having his charges seriously downgraded or dismissed altogether.

The difference is that one was caught on video, in it's entirety.

So even though the cops attempted to plant evidence, and concocted a lie as to what happened, the real story will be viewed by the jury.

So really I don't give a fuck about any nuances, because the video tells the story.

[Benwahh]

if he didn't run away... if had had a working brake light... if he paid child support... if he had a drivers license... if he had vehicle insurance... if he was a productive member of society (who didn do nuffin!) that he would most likely be alive. this dead man is a victim of himself.

[M.F.D.B.]

Originally Posted by Ksiegmund ↗

Funny how all of the people on DR who champion law enforcement as "perfect little angels" are completely silent on this post......
You guys know who you are ^_^;;

Funny how all the dumbass "FUCK DA POLICE" morons are the first to call 911 when it benefits them. ^_^;;

[M.F.D.B.]

Originally Posted by jasongeo2 ↗

What a dumb ass cop. And his excuse to pull him over was third brake light?? Doesnt matter if it does not work. Third brake lights are not required on any car, thats just optional if you have them. The only brake lights that need to be working are the normal ones.

Incorrect, nice try.

When you state something as fact, when it's just plain completely false, I wonder if you are simply dumb or a troll. If you have no idea what you are talking about, its best to be quiet instead of proving it.

DEFECTIVE SAFETY EQUIPMENT, it doesn't matter if your car came with 19 tail lights; if any of them have failed your are in violation. PERIOD.

Shaved door handles? VIOLATION

Air freshener hanging from he rear view? VIOLATION

Bald tires? VIOLATION

Bungee cord holding hood closed? VIOLATION

Stuffed animals on the sun deck? VIOLATION

Missing lug nut? VIOLATION