Some fires did something (Kenosha WI)

[Mister Moose]

Huh. Which section of the Constitution covers municipal police forces?

The Bill of Rights. For instance, if a police manual said police could search an area without a warrant, a Court could rule that to be a violation of a person's constitutional rights despite it being in a police manual. Likewise, the unjustified use of force to arrest a person has been held to be a violation of a person's constitutional rights against search and seizure despite what a police manual may or may not say.

We're talking about self defense standards. You're talking about irrelevant applications.

Wrong. If the officer believes you to be a potential threat, and you do not follow commands, and you make a sudden move with your hand towards a storage area, you are wrong.

I don't think current Supreme Court case law supports this conclusion. The officer has to reasonably believe his or someone else's life is in danger or danger of serious bodily injury. That's the standard articulated by the Supreme Court.

Again, The officer believing his life is in danger is what we're talking about. The rest of your comments are for when the officer does not believe his life is in danger, and not relevant to the conversation.

[easyrider16]

Well, I disagree. When it comes to police action, the Bill of Rights always applies. I even cited a Supreme Court case earlier in the thread. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). It deals with the issue of the use of force during arrest. That's what was happening here, they were trying to arrest and detain Blake.

There are other cases that deal with when an officer can lawfully exercise the use of deadly force. Those cases reiterate the same standard - the officer must reasonably believe his or someone else's life is in danger or danger of serious injury to justify the use of deadly force. The key word is "reasonably." That means he must have facts to rely on, not mere suspicion, as I explained earlier. An unarmed man refusing to obey police orders and reaching for a storage area is not enough. If the officer had reason to believe the man was reaching for a weapon, then it might be.

[Mister Moose]

From the majority opinion in your cited case:

White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

Nowhere in this case was there an issue of the officer believing his life to be in danger, or of the suspect reaching to a possible weapon.

Yes, the key word is reasonably. That definition is NOT in the constitution. Does it vary State to State? Do we know in this case if the officer had [sufficient] reason to believe the man was reaching for a weapon?

[easyrider16]

From the majority opinion in your cited case:

White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

Nowhere in this case was there an issue of the officer believing his life to be in danger, or of the suspect reaching to a possible weapon.

I'm not sure where that quote is from, but it isn't from the body of the case that I cited. You are pretty far off base. If you actually read the case, it goes into great lengths discussing when an officer is justified in the use of deadly force and when he is not. Here's just a small excerpt:

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.

Yes, the key word is reasonably. That definition is NOT in the constitution. Does it vary State to State? Do we know in this case if the officer had [sufficient] reason to believe the man was reaching for a weapon?

The application of the fourth amendment protections of the bill of rights does not vary from state to state. It is a standard set for all law enforcement in the United States. As I've said multiple times now, the inquiry in Blake's case is whether under the circumstances the officers were justified in believing their or someone else's life was in danger or in danger of serious bodily injury.

We are going in circles now.

[Mister Moose]

From the majority opinion in your cited case:

White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

Nowhere in this case was there an issue of the officer believing his life to be in danger, or of the suspect reaching to a possible weapon.

I'm not sure where that quote is from, but it isn't from the body of the case that I cited. You are pretty far off base. If you actually read the case, it goes into great lengths discussing when an officer is justified in the use of deadly force and when he is not. Here's just a small excerpt:

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.

Yes, the key word is reasonably. That definition is NOT in the constitution. Does it vary State to State? Do we know in this case if the officer had [sufficient] reason to believe the man was reaching for a weapon?

The application of the fourth amendment protections of the bill of rights does not vary from state to state. It is a standard set for all law enforcement in the United States. As I've said multiple times now, the inquiry in Blake's case is whether under the circumstances the officers were justified in believing their or someone else's life was in danger or in danger of serious bodily injury.

We are going in circles now.

Your quote and your case has to do with force exercised during an attempted escape from arrest. The suspect was climbing a fence at a significant distance. His hands were unobstructed. The reason for the shooting was the escape, not an immediate threat to the officer. Again, the officers life was not in danger. We might be going in circles because you haven't yet brought any relevance. Do you have a Supreme Court case on reasonableness for an officer determining if his life is in danger?

[easyrider16]

*sigh*

I guess this is where I trot out your ad hominem and turn it against you. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Here's an ABA article on the issue. Note that one of the cases it cites to is Tennessee v. Garner. If the American Bar Association thinks the case is relevant, I'd say that's pretty good authority.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew ... -force-in/

[Highway Star]

*sigh*

I guess this is where I trot out your ad hominem and turn it against you. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Here's an ABA article on the issue. Note that one of the cases it cites to is Tennessee v. Garner. If the American Bar Association thinks the case is relevant, I'd say that's pretty good authority.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew ... -force-in/

Imagine thinking anybody gives a sh*t what you think.

[Mister Moose]

I guess this is where I trot out your ad hominem and turn it against you. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Here's an ABA article on the issue. Note that one of the cases it cites to is Tennessee v. Garner. If the American Bar Association thinks the case is relevant, I'd say that's pretty good authority.

You haven't yet proven either of those assertions.

From the second of 2 cases cited in your ABA article (the first you already cited):
"in Graham v. Connor, the court held that the question of whether an officer used excessive force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”

Where does this case address your point? Note that in the Blake case he was both resisting arrest and engaging in a behavior that posed an immediate threat. Again, do you have a Supreme Court case that defines reasonableness in an officer fearing for his life? If you think that ABA article provides relevance to your interpretation of the specific criteria of the Blake case, then you haven't read your own article. Rather, Graham vs Connor supports "careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case" but it does not establish any definition of reasonableness. Well, other than the two things that Blake did.

[easyrider16]

Well I disagree, and I think I'm just going to stand by what I've already said. Anything more would just be repeating myself to no purpose.

Also, I would suggest reading that article more closely with an eye to understanding the law rather than with the specific intent to formulate a counter argument. It cites more than two cases, and specifically Terry v. Ohio which does talk about the definition of reasonable belief (it requires specific and articulable facts).

[Highway Star]

https://babylonbee.com/news/brand-new-s ... is-on-fire

[Mister Moose]

Well I disagree, and I think I'm just going to stand by what I've already said. Anything more would just be repeating myself to no purpose.

Also, I would suggest reading that article more closely with an eye to understanding the law rather than with the specific intent to formulate a counter argument. It cites more than two cases, and specifically Terry v. Ohio which does talk about the definition of reasonable belief (it requires specific and articulable facts).

More irrelevant case citing. Terry V Ohio deals with search, specifically frisking. While it discusses reasonableness in frisking, arrest, It does not define reasonableness in the use of deadly force. I saw one remotely relevant finding relating to seizure,

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 392 U. S. 21-22.


but that really doesn't define reasonable much further either. Back to the Blake case, if you use the standard of "whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted..." You negate your argument of 1) A cop has a higher duty to take risk and 2) reaching for a possible weapon may fall under calling for "reasonable caution" .

[deadheadskier]

What do say about this one Moose Esq.

Not murder by the cops?


https://theappeal.org/daniel-prude-roch ... e-killing/

Should we send in the militias to Rochester?

[easyrider16]

If the case is irrelevant why does an ABA article about the use of force by police cite to it? I think you are being a bit myopic in your approach to the case law.

Back to the Blake case, if you use the standard of "whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted..." You negate your argument of 1) A cop has a higher duty to take risk and 2) reaching for a possible weapon may fall under calling for "reasonable caution" .

I never said these things.

[Mister Moose]

If the case is irrelevant why does an ABA article about the use of force by police cite to it? I think you are being a bit myopic in your approach to the case law.

Back to the Blake case, if you use the standard of "whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted..." You negate your argument of 1) A cop has a higher duty to take risk and 2) reaching for a possible weapon may fall under calling for "reasonable caution" .

I never said these things.

Wut?

You think the police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone?

If they are not, they should not become police.

Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.

On your first statement, just because it deals with use of force (1) in a frisking case involving 2) a shooting from a distance 3) of a suspect whose hands were visible and 4) not reaching for what might be a weapon, does not make it a very compelling to the case at hand. When you go further and read the finding that the standard for use of force is expressed as "the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution...", not a trained police officer, it negates your prior assertions that the cop has a duty to see the weapon first, or be told the suspect has a weapon, etc, as opposed to exercise reasonable caution which would include making a reach towards a storage area after resisting arrest and ignoring commands to stop. I understand you want to make that assertion, that a cop should take that risk. I don't think that view will hold water in any precinct or any court, and you have provided no foundation for it, rather your cases weaken your assertion.

[easyrider16]

Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.

I don't even know what this means. Higher than whose duty? Higher than what? All I meant by the piece you quoted was that police have a dangerous job, and one that entails risk. If they are not willing to undertake that risk, they should not be police. The same could be said of firefighters, soldiers, and many other occupations. Having a risky job does not give you a license to shoot people.

On your first statement, just because it deals with use of force (1) in a frisking case involving 2) a shooting from a distance 3) of a suspect whose hands were visible and 4) not reaching for what might be a weapon, does not make it a very compelling to the case at hand.

I'm not going to belabor this, but the Terry case defines what constitutes reasonable suspicion to stop someone - it says you need specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable believe that the person is armed. You can take that definition of reasonableness and apply it to a situation analyzing the use of force. The idea being, police need specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable belief in something, not just mere suspicion.

When you go further and read the finding that the standard for use of force is expressed as "the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution...", not a trained police officer

I never said this and it's not what the case law says.

not a trained police officer, it negates your prior assertions that the cop has a duty to see the weapon first, or be told the suspect has a weapon, etc, as opposed to exercise reasonable caution which would include making a reach towards a storage area after resisting arrest and ignoring commands to stop. I understand you want to make that assertion, that a cop should take that risk. I don't think that view will hold water in any precinct or any court, and you have provided no foundation for it, rather your cases weaken your assertion.

This is where you are confusing issues. There's a continuum of things a police officer can do in response to facts that suggest he needs to exercise reasonable caution. That's what the Terry case is about - a police officer pat frisking someone out of reasonable caution because of a belief that they are armed and dangerous based on specific and articulable facts. Also, I've made no assertion that a cop should take a certain risk or not. All I have done is discussed when police use of force is justified. In the case of a person refusing to obey orders and reaching for a storage area, it seems to me there are multiple alternatives to exercise reasonable caution before shooting the person in the back. As to your thoughts on what might hold water in a court, I'll disregard them completely until you provide a cite to just one case. I've cited to many. If you were paying attention to that ABA article, you would have realized that it is discussing a case where a police officer was found guilty of murder in a shooting where the suspect had a knife and was walking away from police officers. Not all that dissimilar to the Blake case.