General Discussion

Playinghardball

(11,665 posts) Tue Apr 14, 2015, 01:26 PM Apr 2015

Good. Now fire Deputy Fuckyourbreath. Reserve Deputy Charged With Manslaughter In Eric Harris Death

Jeff Fecke @jkfecke
Follow
Good. Now fire Deputy Fuckyourbreath. / Reserve Deputy Charged With Manslaughter In Eric Harris Death http://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?story=28790371&catId=112042 …

1:06 PM - 13 Apr 2015

http://theobamadiary.com/

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Good. Now fire Deputy Fuckyourbreath. Reserve Deputy Charged With Manslaughter In Eric Harris Death (Original Post) Playinghardball Apr 2015 OP

The Network news shows last night totally omitted the "Fuck your breath, you ran" remark. leveymg Apr 2015 #1

I thought the Supreme Court stated a cop cannot use deadly force against a fleeing suspect BrotherIvan Apr 2015 #3

There are 2 Sup. Ct. cases: 1) limits on force w/fleeing felon; 2) protection of life justification leveymg Apr 2015 #4

I would guess that fleeing because of a potential drug arrest, as in this case BrotherIvan Apr 2015 #6

It certainly looks that way. It's not "objectively reasonable" to believe he presented a deadly leveymg Apr 2015 #7

Agreed BrotherIvan Apr 2015 #8

The "fuck your breath" deputy is not this guy. This is the guy that fired the shot. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2015 #2

I know. Thanks. leveymg Apr 2015 #5

Sure gives pause fadedrose Apr 2015 #9

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

1. The Network news shows last night totally omitted the "Fuck your breath, you ran" remark.

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 01:37 PM

Apr 2015

Without the "you ran" part, it's just another incompetent cop and his sadistic partner story. The "you ran" justification is what really needs to be examined, along with the policy of some departments that still allow the use of deadly force to stop fleeing felons needs to changed by law.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)

3. I thought the Supreme Court stated a cop cannot use deadly force against a fleeing suspect

Reply to leveymg (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 02:08 PM

Apr 2015

Which should have also been used in the Mike Brown case. But instead an outdated law stating the opposite was presented to the jury. ON PURPOSE.

To be honest, I think the old guy made a mistake. On the video, he says he's sorry. He had no damn business being a part of a pursuit and no fucking business with a gun OR a taser. The Sheriff who allowed him to be on the force with a gun should be charged. The officers who didn't respond with CPR should absolutely be charged.

Since when is it ok to shoot someone and then cuff them without giving any medical aide? Isn't there a law that puts the police into the first responder category? That is messed up.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

4. There are 2 Sup. Ct. cases: 1) limits on force w/fleeing felon; 2) protection of life justification

Reply to BrotherIvan (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 02:48 PM

Apr 2015

Here's an excellent article that discusses the current legal standards, and how they are applied differently by various jurisdictions: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.

The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But as Klinger says, "They basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."

Some police departments' policies only allow deadly force in the first circumstance: defense of life. Others have policies that also allow deadly force to prevent escape in certain cases, within the limits of the Supreme Court decision.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)

6. I would guess that fleeing because of a potential drug arrest, as in this case

Reply to leveymg (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:30 PM

Apr 2015

Does not qualify. That's what I understand from your excerpt, which seems fairly clear. I hope the family and the prosecutor go after this. It's important to make it very clear that a cop can't shoot at someone, just for fleeing. Hence the made up nonsense of Mike Brown "charging" straight at a person who had not only already shot him, but was still shooting.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

7. It certainly looks that way. It's not "objectively reasonable" to believe he presented a deadly

Reply to BrotherIvan (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:40 PM

Apr 2015

threat to anyone.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)

8. Agreed

Reply to leveymg (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:42 PM

Apr 2015

Reason seventybrazillionandone to and the war on drugs right NOW.

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)

2. The "fuck your breath" deputy is not this guy. This is the guy that fired the shot.

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 01:48 PM

Apr 2015

Another deputy made those ugly remarks.

He needs to be fired. But I haven't heard anything about any discipline for him. I don't know if he's even been identified.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

5. I know. Thanks.

Reply to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 02:53 PM

Apr 2015

Firing is the very least that should be done to him. Along with the evidence tampering shooter, he should become a poster boy for ending police brutality and how some police departments lost the "fleeing felon" justification for use of deadly force.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)

9. Sure gives pause

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:44 PM

Apr 2015

into voting for someone who is over the age of what the Bible says should be dead.

Reply to this discussion