Another police murder of a wounded unarmed man who had been shot by another man in road rage incident

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
@Shellandshilo1956 The Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances under which a fleeing suspect may be shot since "back in the day." Those circumstances are really extraordinary and rare. You would have to know that if the suspect were allowed to escape that there would be an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to someone else.

The circumstances that would justify the use of lethal force on an unarmed suspect would be that they had overpowered me and were severely beating me. Also, I would not try to fight off two or more men at once if I was alone. Alone, if two or more unarmed men were attacking me, I would be shooting. If time permitted, I would draw and warn, but I wouldn't be bluffing.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
We've been all through that debate before. But ...
Yes we have. And, we do have a fundamental disagreement over semantics. No hunters uses a gun to wound anything? Wounding is only a coincidental adjunct consequence of being shot. It is NOT the primary purpose and design of any firearm.

Yes, a firearm can kill. A firearm can also wound without killing. It is a deadly weapon because it is capable of killing. It is designed to be capable of killing.
A firearm DOES KILL, not CAN KILL, not MAY KILL, or CAPABLE OF KILLING! A firearm CAN WOUND, but SURVIVAL is not the DESIGNED PARAMETER of any gun! A firearm is DESIGNED TO KILL, not DESIGNED TO BE CAPABLE OF KILLING! So, calling it a rose, by any other name...".

I understand that you believe that whenever you use a firearm, that its job(the firearm) is to stop the lethal threat. And, if a person somehow survives being shot, it has nothing to do with the intent(or purpose) of the gun, or the intent in the mind of the shooter.

Since I am NOT talking about any justifiable, premeditated, negligent, reckless, voluntary or involuntary, or any deliberate homicides involving a firearm, then the SPECIFIC INTENT of the shooter is irrelevant. I have no problem with the use of deadly force, against any deadly or imminent deadly threat. But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the use of deadly force against unarmed suspects and citizens.

This leaves us with the intent and purpose of the firearm. Since NO actual deadly threat exists to the shooter, stopping a non-lethal threat does not require the use of deadly force. Unless you mean that STOPPING people from running away from you, requires the use of deadly force?

I believe that guns are designed to KILL whatever it hits. You believe that guns are designed to STOP whatever it hits. I believe that one is true, and have the victims to prove it. And, you believe that the other is true, and think that death is only coincidental. I totally disagree. Guns do and will kill. Guns are designed to kill. And, anyone pulling the trigger knows that it will kill the person it is pointing at.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances under which a fleeing suspect may be shot since "back in the day." Those circumstances are really extraordinary and rare. You would have to know that if the suspect were allowed to escape that there would be an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to someone else.
I have mentioned this example in another thread as one of many excusable/justifiable homicides. An example would be a rape suspect caught in the act, and trying to book-it. Bank robbers armed and leaving the bank. A prisoner trying to escape. Even an arsonist running out of a torched building. All are examples where lethal force can be used, whether the suspect(s) is armed or not. Of course none of these apply to any of the recent shootings by police on unarmed victims.

The circumstances that would justify the use of lethal force on an unarmed suspect would be that they had overpowered me and were severely beating me. Also, I would not try to fight off two or more men at once if I was alone. Alone, if two or more unarmed men were attacking me, I would be shooting. If time permitted, I would draw and warn, but I wouldn't be bluffing.
This is just another lethal threat by size or numbers. You have no argument with me here either. I was kind of hoping for an example, where there is no lethal threat. And, where the suspect(s) is unarmed. None of the of the cops were being overpowered, or were being beaten to death. Personally, I just can't think of one. I CAN think of a lot of hypotheticals, that could have become deadly. I just thought maybe you could think of some.

That has always been the rule. If you ever pull your gun out, be prepared to use it, or you will lose it.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I have mentioned this example in another thread as one of many excusable/justifiable homicides. An example would be a rape suspect caught in the act, and trying to book-it. Bank robbers armed and leaving the bank. A prisoner trying to escape. Even an arsonist running out of a torched building. All are examples where lethal force can be used, whether the suspect(s) is armed or not. Of course none of these apply to any of the recent shootings by police on unarmed victims.



This is just another lethal threat by size or numbers. You have no argument with me here either. I was kind of hoping for an example, where there is no lethal threat. And, where the suspect(s) is unarmed. None of the of the cops were being overpowered, or were being beaten to death. Personally, I just can't think of one. I CAN think of a lot of hypotheticals, that could have become deadly. I just thought maybe you could think of some.

That has always been the rule. If you ever pull your gun out, be prepared to use it, or you will lose it.
I generally agree with you, although, as I said, the rules have been narrowed. The examples you gave of bank robbers, rapists, and arsonists fleeing used to justify using lethal force - the old "fleeing felon" law. I think your knowledge is coming from "back in the day", young fella. Nowadays, you would have to have specific and articulable knowledge that that felon posed an imminent threat of death or serious injury if he were to escape. In the vast majority of cases, police do not possess knowledge that rises to that level of certainty as a suspected felon flees.

So no, police are not allowed to shoot when there is no lethal threat. A prisoner escaping from a high security prison may still be an exception. I think if the prisoner climbs up to the top of the wall or fence, they may be shot, but that too is very rare.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Yes we have. And, we do have a fundamental disagreement over semantics. No hunters uses a gun to wound anything? Wounding is only a coincidental adjunct consequence of being shot. It is NOT the primary purpose and design of any firearm.



A firearm DOES KILL, not CAN KILL, not MAY KILL, or CAPABLE OF KILLING! A firearm CAN WOUND, but SURVIVAL is not the DESIGNED PARAMETER of any gun! A firearm is DESIGNED TO KILL, not DESIGNED TO BE CAPABLE OF KILLING! So, calling it a rose, by any other name...".

I understand that you believe that whenever you use a firearm, that its job(the firearm) is to stop the lethal threat. And, if a person somehow survives being shot, it has nothing to do with the intent(or purpose) of the gun, or the intent in the mind of the shooter.

Since I am NOT talking about any justifiable, premeditated, negligent, reckless, voluntary or involuntary, or any deliberate homicides involving a firearm, then the SPECIFIC INTENT of the shooter is irrelevant. I have no problem with the use of deadly force, against any deadly or imminent deadly threat. But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the use of deadly force against unarmed suspects and citizens.

This leaves us with the intent and purpose of the firearm. Since NO actual deadly threat exists to the shooter, stopping a non-lethal threat does not require the use of deadly force. Unless you mean that STOPPING people from running away from you, requires the use of deadly force?

I believe that guns are designed to KILL whatever it hits. You believe that guns are designed to STOP whatever it hits. I believe that one is true, and have the victims to prove it. And, you believe that the other is true, and think that death is only coincidental. I totally disagree. Guns do and will kill. Guns are designed to kill. And, anyone pulling the trigger knows that it will kill the person it is pointing at.
And you see, I think intent is in the mind of the shooter. If you are a hunter, you deliberately aim and intend to kill the animal. If you are a murderer, and you shoot a witness to your crime (a bank teller for example) in the face and then one to the back of the head when she's down, your intent was to kill. But if a crazed 240 lb man runs directly at you with a large carving knife after being ordered repeatedly to stop and drop the knife, and as he closes to about ten feet, you shoot, your intent is to stop him. This happened to a friend of mine. He fired one shot, and the guy collapsed. The guy lived. My friend's intent was fulfilled because the shot stopped him. It is a good example of why police say they shoot to stop a lethal threat because that is their intent.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I generally agree with you, although, as I said, the rules have been narrowed. The examples you gave of bank robbers, rapists, and arsonists fleeing used to justify using lethal force - the old "fleeing felon" law. I think your knowledge is coming from "back in the day", young fella. Nowadays, you would have to have specific and articulable knowledge that that felon posed an imminent threat of death or serious injury if he were to escape. In the vast majority of cases, police do not possess knowledge that rises to that level of certainty as a suspected felon flees.
Wow, things truly have changed since the good old days. So, if a robber shoots two bank tellers, puts his gun in his pocket and flees, you can't shot him for fear that he might kill or hurt someone while escaping? That if a rapist rapes and kills his victim, does a runner, can't shoot him, because other women are in no danger because he has spent himself? That if an Arsonist runs out of a burning building leaving two families trapped and screaming at the windows, drops his petrol cans and books-it, can't shoot him? So, if these felons don't tell you exactly what they are going to do while escaping, can't shoot 'em? You're right things truly have changed.

So no, police are not allowed to shoot when there is no lethal threat.
Do handcuffed suspects pose a lethal threat? Do unarmed fleeing suspects pose a lethal threat? Do unarmed citizens refusing to cooperate pose a threat? I just don't get it. People who have actually committed capital offences, are legally protected from being shot. But those who fail to cooperate, make sudden movements, check of the safety of your family, or try to evade arrest or struggle in their handcuffs, are shot/killed legally.

Because of this perception of cops randomly killing unarmed people, citizens in certain communities will start to arm themselves. It will be just a matter of time, before the first case of self-defense hits the courts, involving an armed citizen killing a cop, because he was in genuine fear of his life. Do you remember the "Zebra Killings"?

I'll get back to you on the other post. I need some rest.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Wow, things truly have changed since the good old days. So, if a robber shoots two bank tellers, puts his gun in his pocket and flees, you can't shot him for fear that he might kill or hurt someone while escaping? That if a rapist rapes and kills his victim, does a runner, can't shoot him, because other women are in no danger because he has spent himself? That if an Arsonist runs out of a burning building leaving two families trapped and screaming at the windows, drops his petrol cans and books-it, can't shoot him? So, if these felons don't tell you exactly what they are going to do while escaping, can't shoot 'em? You're right things truly have changed.
Yes, they have.



Do handcuffed suspects pose a lethal threat?
No, as long as they are handcuffed properly and unarmed. No.

Do unarmed fleeing suspects pose a lethal threat?
No, except in the narrowly defined circumstance I talked about earlier.

Do unarmed citizens refusing to cooperate pose a threat?
You mean like static resistance? For example, "You're under arrest for burglary. Stand up and turn around." Answer: "No." That is static resistance. It may be a precursor to active resistance, but in and of itself, it is not an active threat.


I just don't get it. People who have actually committed capital offences, are legally protected from being shot. But those who fail to cooperate, make sudden movements, check of the safety of your family, or try to evade arrest or struggle in their handcuffs, are shot/killed legally.
Clearly, some shootings are not justified or legal.

Because of this perception of cops randomly killing unarmed people, citizens in certain communities will start to arm themselves. It will be just a matter of time, before the first case of self-defense hits the courts, involving an armed citizen killing a cop, because he was in genuine fear of his life. Do you remember the "Zebra Killings"?
I vaguely remember the name, but not the details.

I'll get back to you on the other post. I need some rest.
Talk to you later.
 

Squire

Active member
So Shelly, if we eliminate all the unjustified & illegal shootings, I would have to logically think then that most all the remaining 'other', shootings are probably justified or legal....no?
No! They may be protected from prosecution by the immunity that police enjoy when they suffer urinary incontinence.

The only shooting that is justified is when a victim is pointing an 'actual', 'real' gun at a police officer or at another innocent person or is attacking a police officer or another person with a deadly weapon.

Police urinary continence is not a justification for killing a human.

Police are losing the fight against crime because they are indulging in crime to fight crime and killing innocent people.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And you see, I think intent is in the mind of the shooter. If you are a hunter, you deliberately aim and intend to kill the animal. If you are a murderer, and you shoot a witness to your crime (a bank teller for example) in the face and then one to the back of the head when she's down, your intent was to kill. But if a crazed 240 lb man runs directly at you with a large carving knife after being ordered repeatedly to stop and drop the knife, and as he closes to about ten feet, you shoot, your intent is to stop him. This happened to a friend of mine. He fired one shot, and the guy collapsed. The guy lived. My friend's intent was fulfilled because the shot stopped him. It is a good example of why police say they shoot to stop a lethal threat because that is their intent.
Seth, Guns do NOT have intent, period. Guns only have a design and a purpose. Only the human mind can form intent. In most cases where a person is firing in self-defense, there is no time to form any intent at all. The person is firing only on instincts, fear and reflex. No time to think at all. Although, things DO happen in slow motion. But again, these are not the cases I'm talking about. But in either case, NO ONE can know for certain what the intent of the shooter was during the act. This includes your execution-style murder example, where intent is implicit in the action itself. It is also defined under "special circumstances" in the statute.

If a crazed 240 pound man runs at you with a knife, you shoot him, warning or not. But what if the crazed 240 pound man with a knife is walking on the beach threatening others, and ignoring your commands to drop the knife? Do you just shoot him down? What if it was a crazed 13 year old girl is coming at you with a knife, do you shoot her down too? What if she is running away from you with the knife? I think you see my point!

We both know that intent is specific, general, implied, inferred, and implicit whenever you use a gun in the commission of any crime. Why? Because it is a deadly weapon, that is designed to kill anything that breathes. It is NOT designed to wound or to stop, like stun guns, tasers, sprays, batons, or a powerful fart.

I think we seem to be arguing about two different things.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So Shelly, if we eliminate all the unjustified & illegal shootings, I would have to logically think then that most all the remaining 'other', shootings are probably justified or legal....no?
If we eliminate all the unjustified and illegal shootings(that we know of), then logically the rest would be justified and legal. YES!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No! They may be protected from prosecution by the immunity that police enjoy when they suffer urinary incontinence.

The only shooting that is justified is when a victim is pointing an 'actual', 'real' gun at a police officer or at another innocent person or is attacking a police officer or another person with a deadly weapon.

Police urinary continence is not a justification for killing a human.

Police are losing the fight against crime because they are indulging in crime to fight crime and killing innocent people.
Yeah, the old "Sphinctus Puckeritis Syndrome". And, the old "Equiptus Accidentus Forgetitis", will rank up there with the other creative legal defenses(Twinkie, Irresistible Impulse, Driving Between Wives, Sexomnia, PMS, Gay Panic, Matrix, Taxi Driver, Black Rage, etc.).

As long as it is Whites who are making the laws, then it will be Whites making all the excuses. Justice is just becoming another sad sitcom, to keep the masses entertained and distracted. Justice is certainly no longer blind!
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
That is patently not true. They shoot to kill on the principle a dead person can't be a witness.

Most often the cop empties the whole magazine at the victim.
Cops only shoot to stop. To stop the suspects actions(lethal or not), and more shots to stop the suspects heart.
 
Top