Unarmed man killed by police who fired 20 rounds at him

you need to ask your self why does the vast majority of these unarmed police shootings happen in democrat controlled cities a democrat mayor that appoints the police chief

 

When hunting, one is supposed to be able to identify that the game is indeed an animal(not human) of certain size, age and gender, for it to be legal. There are no excuses. So why do LEO's get off killing humans just because they thought them a threat. I men, when you fire on a person, ought you not to be damned certain it's the right thing to do? Not, well I thought....or well, he coulda been going for a weapon,....or I thought I saw a weapon. That said, why in the hell do blacks always run? Nothing suspicious about that.

 

Don't you think that is a problem? People getting shot for having a cell phone in their hands?

 

Having an object in one's hand while being heckled by the police is a death sentence.
Not immediately doing what the police screams at you is a death sentence.
Moving towards the police is a death sentence.
Moving away from the police is a death sentence.
Having a prior police file for past wrongs is a death sentence.
Being black, brown or poor is a death sentence.

O-kaaayyy. The way I see it, the nearer one is near to twitchy, paranoid, cowardly, corrupt cops, the nearer that one is to a death sentence.

I think I'd rather have the mob to protect me.

 

Apparently they knew who he was. Due process starts once you follow the cops instructions and allow them to arrest you, not when you start running away.

 

In a somewhat similar incident, a cop is charged with 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter with the shooting of an unarmed woman.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bail-set-400k-police-officer-charged-killing-australian/story?id=53904213

"Noor's attorney said he 'acted as he has been trained'"

So according to the attorney, he was trained to murder first, ask questions later.

 

It is when you're a known felon with weapons violations not listening to orders.

 

How so? Before they murdered him or after?

No due process starts the moment the Oath of Office is completed out of a cop's mouth.

 

Weird. OP must have missed that part.

 

Police, in some circumstances, have a right to shoot a fleeing felon.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit."

People v. Couch (1990) in the Michigan Supreme Court held that that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule#U.S._law

 

He made a choice to walk around smashing car windows to steal things and smashing in sliding glass doors to rob people or worse.

When caught by police, he decided he wasn't going to allow himself to be arrested and ran from the police to granny's house.

Then he walked toward police officers while they were yelling for him to stop. He didn't. They dropped him.

Now the world is a better place and the people in that neighborhood won't have their heavily barred windows, cars and doors smashed in by this criminal. Now they can sleep more easily.

One less piece of crap in the world.

 

Yeah yeah yeah. So what was the proper procedure police should have followed in this case?

 

They should have allowed him to continue terrorizing the neighborhood at his leisure, apparently.

 

You have to submit to the arrest before you can receive due process. Then if it is a capital offense and your are found guilty you may be executed.

 

Explain how you receive due process when you will not submit to the arrest?

 

None of which are capital offences.

Running from the police is not a capital offence.

Did you see him walking towards them? I didn't. Not on the body cam footage.

I heard, "Show me your hands" then, "gun, gun, gun". It sounds like he was complying with the request to show his hands and he had a cell phone in one of his hands. Frankly, even if he did have a gun in his hand he might have been complying with a request to show his hands. The "stop" was a bit earlier, and sounded like they meant "stop running away".

I guess in your world, thieves and petty criminals deserve the death penalty. Not in mine.

 

Explain how murdering an unarmed man is part of due process.

 

And you didn't answer my questions.

 

Great.

Turn your house into a halfway home and reform them then.

Otherwise people who like terrorizing communities are going to win their prize.

 

Of course I did. Due process began when he started committing crimes, resisted arrest, then got shot for it.

 

I don't believe I mentioned his race, but good job getting ahead of it.

Go ahead and find a thread with a criminal of a different color that I had a different opinion of.

You can't because I don't care about the color of a criminal, but you keep banging your race drum.

 

Please show me where it says that in any definition of "due process". Here's some help for your research, let me know when you find it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

If you can't find it, then please have the courtesy to admit you have no clue what due process is.

 

Just to be clear, you think that petty criminals should be summarily executed by the police? Because that seems to be what you are saying.

The body cam footage is consistent with the guy obeying the cops' instructions once they had him cornered. That is not the only possibility, but it is one possibility.

 

Sure, here you go.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/chronology-the-arrest-process.html

Resist the arrest process and you refuse due process.

 

Ones who resist, run, don't follow commands and advance on a police officer?

I think they should be stopped with deadly force, yes. That's not an execution. The police planned to walk up to the criminal and gingerly place him under arrest. The criminal chose a different course.

A criminal not listening to commands puts them in jeopardy of being killed. I don't expect them to put their lives at risk to make sure a criminal won't kill them.