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?

 

[drop bear]

Simple burglary? There is no such thing when a weapon is involved.
You made an Extreme jump there, for all we know that fleeing felon (not misdemeanor) had also just shot someone ( or was on their way to do so).

You are cherry picking just like the media does trying to create a narrative. Not disclosing the full story, just a part to try to make a (usually incorrect) point.

Steve asked for an example of due process in context, I gave him the statute and amendment. No more fuller disclosure that that. But it requires the due diligence to read and Interpret the whole thing, not cherry pick it.

For all I know the old person in line in front of me at the shops is a nazi war criminal.

But I am not allowed to shoot him.

 

[Buka]

Such a happy thread. Thought I’d dress it up.

 

[HighKick]

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?

How? I could hardly read it at all. What did you copy from, an 8086?

As far as the 'evidence, in my line of work, I had to be in a courtroom more times than I can remember, my wife is an attorney, it is part and parcel around our house to discuss the amendments.

You are certainly showing your true colors making such an inflammatory insinuation.

Clearly, you are the one trying real hard to set a narrative.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

How? I could hardly read it at all. What did you copy from, an 8086?

As far as the 'evidence, in my line of work, I had to be in a courtroom more times than I can remember, my wife is an attorney, it is part and parcel around our house to discuss the amendments.

You are certainly showing your true colors making such an inflammatory insinuation.

Clearly, you are the one trying real hard to set a narrative.

That kid died in the operating room. I work in the operating room. That affects me and my people because we don’t like losing. I respect police I respect life. I respect your opinion. I like to hope you can respect mine. We can end it there. In no way was I trying to start any disrespect with you.