Reasonable vs "Crash Out"

[HighKick]

That’s not the story I read. It said he was a teenager, unarmed, who had stolen a purse and 10 dollars. He was shot in the back of his head while climbing a fence to escape arrest. You really think that he deserved to die like that for a burglary? Now I’m not defending his crime, and if he broke while the homeowner was there and they shot him then that’s on the burglar. But for a police officer to shoot a nonviolent unarmed teenager in the back of the head while they are fleeing and unarmed is wrong. Take it However you like, it’s wrong.

I am not sure where you got that document, but so much is left out, it is easy for one to think you are cherry picking the narrative, again.

​

The Supreme Court Decision​

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Garner. The Court held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling established that deadly force may only be used if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The bolded part will always be the Very difficult part to prove, from either side of the fence (no pun intended).

 

[HighKick]

That’s not the story I read. It said he was a teenager, unarmed, who had stolen a purse and 10 dollars. He was shot in the back of his head while climbing a fence to escape arrest. You really think that he deserved to die like that for a burglary? Now I’m not defending his crime, and if he broke while the homeowner was there and they shot him then that’s on the burglar. But for a police officer to shoot a nonviolent unarmed teenager in the back of the head while they are fleeing and unarmed is wrong. Take it However you like, it’s wrong.

Do you not see how egregiously you are drawing a conclusion Without all the information?

 

[Steve]

You do understand the phrase "for all we know". I made it very clear I know nothing about the particulars of the occurrence.

You and Steve seem to be in a very different place in regards to the conversation.
I am tapping out.

Probably for the best.

Well that didn’t last long.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

You do understand the phrase "for all we know". I made it very clear I know nothing about the particulars of the occurrence.

You and Steve seem to be in a very different place in regards to the conversation.
I am tapping out.

No offense.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Do you not see how egregiously you are drawing a conclusion Without all the information?

Yes, you can sympathize, no?

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I am not sure where you got that document, but so much is left out, it is easy for one to think you are cherry picking the narrative, again.

​

The Supreme Court Decision​

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Garner. The Court held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling established that deadly force may only be used if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The bolded part will always be the Very difficult part to prove, from either side of the fence (no pun intended).

You got me all kinds of wrong on this partner. That document was part of the document you posted. I took a screenshot as I read it. Did you not bother to read your own evidence? That’s a bad look for your argument in favor of police murdering unarmed teenagers from behind while they climb a fence. Now who is cherry picking for a narrative?