I think the part you need to add in here is, make a mistake on most jobs and you don't kill someone.

 

Agreed.

Not entirely true, the sun roof was open, he could have been reaching in there.

 

If his hands dropped, he's not reaching in the sunroof. And even if he arms are up, he may be able to reach the sunroof but he's probably not able to reach in very far. Angle and distances matter.

 

Why was he walking back to his vehicle? No reason to do so, none. At that point the officer doesnt know what he is going to do.

 

Walking back to your vehicle is not reason to be shot. Window was up, he couldn't reach in there. We just addressed the sunroof issue.

 

She screwed herself by saying he reached in the vehicle. Driver window was closed and hand never went to the sunroof.

Ok window is closed but in this chaotic mess of a situation she forgets about the window and sees him lower hands and lean in towards the window as if he is actually reaching in that car , its been two days since I watched the video but if I recall correctly he looks like he is leaning to get thru the window . At that point I don't expect a LEO to not use whatever force he/she deems necessary after a suspect has repeatedly not followed requests .

Ok window is closed but in this chaotic mess of a situation she forgets about the window and sees him lower hands and lean in towards the window as if he is actually reaching in that car , its been two days since I watched the video but if I recall correctly he looks like he is leaning to get thru the window . At that point I don't expect a LEO to not use whatever force he/she deems necessary after a suspect has repeatedly not followed requests .

 

So basically you are refusing to acknowledge this officer made a mistake...

Ok window is closed but in this chaotic mess of a situation she forgets about the window and sees him lower hands and lean in towards the window as if he is actually reaching in that car , its been two days since I watched the video but if I recall correctly he looks like he is leaning to get thru the window . At that point I don't expect a LEO to not use whatever force he/she deems necessary after a suspect has repeatedly not followed requests .

You can't tell what he's doing before the shot. If the window is up she screwed up. I think it probably happened like rocket laid out. At the least she thought he was doing something he wasn't, and she killed him. That cannot go unpunished.

Ok window is closed but in this chaotic mess of a situation she forgets about the window and sees him lower hands and lean in towards the window as if he is actually reaching in that car , its been two days since I watched the video but if I recall correctly he looks like he is leaning to get thru the window . At that point I don't expect a LEO to not use whatever force he/she deems necessary after a suspect has repeatedly not followed requests .

 

I'm sorry but when someone's life is in the balance, "forgetting" about the window is unacceptable and why she's charged.

 

Part of the problem in this country right now is that some people give police free reign and refuse to hold them accountable. You seem to fit in this category. I next expect you to say she can't be blamed because her cat coughed up a furball that morning and she was worried about it.

 

It is possible to be pro police and pro justice. My uncle was a state trooper, my father was a local police officer, I went to school for Criminal Justice, and I joined the US Army to defend this country. I'm about as pro police, pro authority as you can be but I also choose to not be blind to the fact it is very possible this officer made a mistake. And if she did, the victim and his family deserve justice.

Is it illegal to drive with a six pack in your car if your not under the infuence of it? What about a pack of PCP? Can you answer the same to both questions?

 

My point goes back to the inference of one and not the inference by some towards the other.

 

I wasn't arguing legality.

 

The premise was, since we found

PCP he must be on PCP in this event.

 

If we find a six pack, does that infer

He had been drinking?

To me , as soon as attempts to get in that car he had to stopped. He already established he wasn't going to cooperate . If he gets to the car all hell can break loose . I don't expect anyone to be perfect , but I'm not going send cops to jail over a situation like this . Not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours . So not much need to carry on .

To me , as soon as attempts to get in that car he had to stopped. He already established he wasn't going to cooperate . If he gets to the car all hell can break loose . I don't expect anyone to be perfect , but I'm not going send cops to jail over a situation like this . Not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours . So not much need to carry on .

 

A tazer can't stop him? Getting in the car is reason to be shot? Well hell, I have no idea how I'm going to get to work anymore. I can't use my car because I apparently will be KILLED if it looks like I might possibly be opening the door.

My point goes back to the inference of one and not the inference by some towards the other.

 

I wasn't arguing legality.

 

The premise was, since we found

PCP he must be on PCP in this event.

 

If we find a six pack, does that infer

He had been drinking?

 

 

On this point how many people actually travel with beer in their car that have not partaken , VS those with PCP in their car ? I'm leaning towards saying you have PCP on you , and you are acting extremely unstable , then you are more than likely using.

To me , as soon as attempts to get in that car he had to stopped. He already established he wasn't going to cooperate . If he gets to the car all hell can break loose . I don't expect anyone to be perfect , but I'm not going send cops to jail over a situation like this . Not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours . So not much need to carry on .

 

Ummm...his car is broken down in the middle of the road. She's determined there was no weapon via a search. What kind of he'll is going to breal loose?

And at that point the officer had the option to use the taser before it got to the point that she felt threatened enough to kill him.

 

So you agree he was a threat. No reason to use any weapon unless there is a perceived threat right?

A tazer can't stop him? Getting in the car is reason to be shot? Well hell, I have no idea how I'm going to get to work anymore. I can't use my car because I apparently will be KILLED if it looks like I might possibly be opening the door.

 

You nailed it . Case closed .

To me , as soon as attempts to get in that car he had to stopped. He already established he wasn't going to cooperate . If he gets to the car all hell can break loose . I don't expect anyone to be perfect , but I'm not going send cops to jail over a situation like this . Not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours . So not much need to carry on .

 

As long as there are people with your mindset, that will NEVER admit wrong doing by LEO, this will be an ongoing problem.

On this point how many people actually travel with beer in their car that have not partaken , VS those with PCP in their car ? I'm leaning towards saying you have PCP on you , and you are acting extremely unstable , then you are more than likely using.

 

All I was doing was proving fallacy by a logical approach. Took it in class at EKU back when these thought were taught.