Final Call For Officer Sonny Kim

Page 3 of That last call gets me every time. Final call for fallen police Officer Sonny Kim - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati - Top Stories... 55 comments | 2497 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #31
    theguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 00
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    127,218

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Question for @theguru, other officers, legal experts, or people who think they know(like me):

    Let's say the second officer rolls up on Sonny Kim's cruiser and sees Kim down on the ground and a man standing next to him. The male raises his hands hands above his head with no weapon in a "don't shoot/I give" motion.

    Can an officer shoot him? If the officer did shoot him would the officer be subject to arrest/
    Not enough info in your post.

    Or based solely on your post and NOTHING ELSE this is a no shoot situation.
    Advertisement

  2. #32
    Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,165

    Quote Originally Posted by theguru View Post
    Not enough info in your post.

    Or based solely on your post and NOTHING ELSE this is a no shoot situation.
    Not much more to it. What else would you want to know to get a better picture? @theguru

  3. #33
    theguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 00
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    127,218

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Not much more to it. What else would you want to know to get a better picture? @theguru
    Based on what you told me it is no shoot.

    Keep in mind everyone, I don't anything about the facts of this case. It is hard for a lot of retired police officers to get into all the details, kind of a PTSD thing.

    To Clyde, what knowledge did the second officer have before pulling up on the man standing over Officer Kim?

  4. #34
    Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,165

    Quote Originally Posted by theguru View Post
    Based on what you told me it is no shoot.

    Keep in mind everyone, I don't anything about the facts of this case. It is hard for a lot of retired police officers to get into all the details, kind of a PTSD thing.

    To Clyde, what knowledge did the second officer have before pulling up on the man standing over Officer Kim?
    ASSUMPTION TO FOLLOW:

    He knows there has been a shooting. Let's say he knows an officer is down. He knows the shooter is a black male.

    He pulls up and there's a black male by the officer's body. Black male has no weapon and his hands are up. If the 2nd officer fired because he correctly assumed the black male was the shooter could the officer be in legal trouble?

  5. #35
    theguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 00
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    127,218

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    ASSUMPTION TO FOLLOW:

    He knows there has been a shooting. Let's say he knows an officer is down. He knows the shooter is a black male.

    He pulls up and there's a black male by the officer's body. Black male has no weapon and his hands are up. If the 2nd officer fired because he correctly assumed the black male was the shooter could the officer be in legal trouble?
    Absolutely could be in big trouble but I would tend to call something like that more of a mistake in the heat of the second than call it a criminal act by the 2nd officer.

  6. #36
    John Anthony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 07
    Location
    The Nation which forgets it's defenders, will soon be forgotten.
    Posts
    19,466

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Question for @theguru, other officers, legal experts, or people who think they know(like me): Let's say the second officer rolls up on Sonny Kim's cruiser and sees Kim down on the ground and a man standing next to him. The male raises his hands hands above his head with no weapon in a "don't shoot/I give" motion. Can an officer shoot him? If the officer did shoot him would the officer be subject to arrest/
    You're a creating a hypothetical situation that is the polar opposite of the real life and death situation....

  7. #37
    Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,165

    Quote Originally Posted by John Anthony View Post
    You're a creating a hypothetical situation that is the polar opposite of the real life and death situation....
    There's a method to my madness but give me some explanation as to the above.

  8. #38
    Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,165

    Quote Originally Posted by theguru View Post
    Absolutely could be in big trouble but I would tend to call something like that more of a mistake in the heat of the second than call it a criminal act by the 2nd officer.
    What COULD the court of law call it?

  9. #39
    John Anthony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 07
    Location
    The Nation which forgets it's defenders, will soon be forgotten.
    Posts
    19,466

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    There's a method to my madness but give me some explanation as to the above.
    Your motive is confusing me I'll have to read more details.

  10. #40
    lawildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 10
    Location
    The Compound
    Posts
    17,003

    IMO, no way the 2nd officer should just roll up and start shooting based on that brief scenario. The perpetrator could have fled at that point and the man standing over the officer may be trying to help him. Too many ifs...

  11. #41
    UKMustangFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    No time to enjoy #4, It's on the path to #5...
    Posts
    59,248

    I'm trying to figure out what the relevance to this hypothetical is, especially relating to Officer Kim's death???

  12. #42
    Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,165

    Quote Originally Posted by John Anthony View Post
    Your motive is confusing me I'll have to read more details.
    Here's why I've asked the questions.

    IF (and that's why I asked) there are limits as to the arriving officer being able to fire on the person who shot Officer Kim THEN there is a valid reason to release the video which is the current big debate.

    We saw it recently in Chicago. Just because there is a vile person involved it doesn't mean the officers are free to violate law as we saw in Chicago. Chicago - all the way up to the Mayor - tried to withhold the video from the public eye. Classic coverup.

    Once the city realized they could not withhold the video THEN they decided to charge the officer for the 16 shots against a person (as bad as he may have been) who was NOT a threat.

    So to benefit the entire police force and especially the officer who fired the deadly shot against the shooter of Officer Kim the video has to be released. It removes all doubts as to the validity of the killing by the police. Anyone who watches the video (and I saw the edited video) knows the killing BY the officer was 100% justified. Case closed.

  13. #43
    theguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 00
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    127,218

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    What COULD the court of law call it?
    Anything the people in charge want.

  14. #44
    John Anthony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 07
    Location
    The Nation which forgets it's defenders, will soon be forgotten.
    Posts
    19,466

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Here's why I've asked the questions. IF (and that's why I asked) there are limits as to the arriving officer being able to fire on the person who shot Officer Kim THEN there is a valid reason to release the video which is the current big debate. We saw it recently in Chicago. Just because there is a vile person involved it doesn't mean the officers are free to violate law as we saw in Chicago. Chicago - all the way up to the Mayor - tried to withhold the video from the public eye. Classic coverup. Once the city realized they could not withhold the video THEN they decided to charge the officer for the 16 shots against a person (as bad as he may have been) who was NOT a threat. So to benefit the entire police force and especially the officer who fired the deadly shot against the shooter of Officer Kim the video has to be released. It removes all doubts as to the validity of the killing by the police. Anyone who watches the video (and I saw the edited video) knows the killing BY the officer was 100% justified. Case closed.
    I see your point but wasn't it noted that Hummons fired at Sandmanns cruiser?

  15. #45
    Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,165

    Quote Originally Posted by John Anthony View Post
    I see your point but wasn't it noted that Hummons fired at Sandmanns cruiser?
    Sure. It was also noted in Chicago that the officer was threatened.

    That's my point. Video backs up the officers and squashes any argument that the police lied.

Top