Happy now BLM?

[RandBlade]

That article neither says he "feared for his life" nor that the suspect "didn't move".

I hope the moron who orchestrated this gets locked up for felony murder.

[Khendraja'aro]

That article neither says he "feared for his life" nor that the suspect "didn't move".

I hope the moron who orchestrated this gets locked up for felony murder.

Jesus, Rand, you really are incapable of a cogent thought, are you?

From the fucking article:

US law is deferential to the police in this kind of situation. Officers are permitted to use deadly force if they have a reasonable fear for their lives, and prosecutors rarely second-guess police judgments.

You might also want to read the linked Wichita Eagle article.

[RandBlade]

Jesus, Rand, you really are incapable of a cogent thought, are you?

From the fucking article:

You might also want to read the linked Wichita Eagle article.

Yes I am it seems you aren't. Aimless can comprehend the difference between simply fearing for his own life and fearing for the lives of others - are you incapable of comprehending that? His own location is secondary if he's acting to save others.

[Aimless]

Yes I am it seems you aren't. Aimless can comprehend the difference between simply fearing for his own life and fearing for the lives of others - are you incapable of comprehending that? His own location is secondary if he's acting to save others.

No real reason to distinguish between the two. A cop fearing for his life will get the same free pass as one fearing for the lives of others.

[Aimless]

That article neither says he "feared for his life" nor that the suspect "didn't move".

The officer who shot Finch has not been identified. But District Attorney Marc Bennett said on Thursday that he saw Finch reaching toward his waistband and believed that he was reaching for a weapon.

A reasonable interpretation is that the officer was arguing that he had cause to fear for his life or that of other innocent people nearby, eg. his fellow officers.

He has said as much:

“His hand starts to come up and that when I’m like okay he’s, he’s ‘gonna fire at officers,” the officer said. “I believe that I see a, a gun in his hand and as the, that’s being raised at the officers and at that point that’s when I decide to protect those officers and their lives and safety. I fire one round at this individual.”

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article208812519.html

Now, in this particular instance, sure, it's most appropriate to blame the person who set up the hoax to begin with, and the person who solicited his help. But US cops have done similar things in similar situations--SWAT assault or the like on the homes of innocent people--even when they haven't been set up by someone else. Were they not so twitchy--and so accustomed to being able to kill people with impunity--I believe the likelihood of Finch dying in this incident would've been much lower, hoax or no hoax.

[LittleFuzzy]

A reasonable interpretation is that the officer was arguing that he had cause to fear for his life or that of other innocent people nearby, eg. his fellow officers.

He has said as much:



http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article208812519.html

Now, in this particular instance, sure, it's most appropriate to blame the person who set up the hoax to begin with, and the person who solicited his help. But US cops have done similar things in similar situations--SWAT assault or the like on the homes of innocent people--even when they haven't been set up by someone else. Were they not so twitchy--and so accustomed to being able to kill people with impunity--I believe the likelihood of Finch dying in this incident would've been much lower, hoax or no hoax.

It would be nice if they weren't so twitchy. In this case, even if the officer should be charged in a perfect world, I can get behind not doing so. Making certain the guy who set up the swatting gets nailed properly is going to involve making arguments which a defense lawyer for this cop will be able to use to secure an acquittal. And working hard to nail this guy despite that just might hand the swatting jackass' lawyer enough to get off too. This is a set of cases where the DA has to decide which person they want to convict more and I can agree with choosing to go after the swatter and letting the officer off due to lacking confidence in the ability to secure a conviction.

[Khendraja'aro]

It would be nice if they weren't so twitchy. In this case, even if the officer should be charged in a perfect world, I can get behind not doing so. Making certain the guy who set up the swatting gets nailed properly is going to involve making arguments which a defense lawyer for this cop will be able to use to secure an acquittal. And working hard to nail this guy despite that just might hand the swatting jackass' lawyer enough to get off too. This is a set of cases where the DA has to decide which person they want to convict more and I can agree with choosing to go after the swatter and letting the officer off due to lacking confidence in the ability to secure a conviction.

Again, the fucking US ARMY has stricter Rules of Engagement than these jackasses. If that had been a soldier he would have been court-martialed.

Food for thought.

Also, by the way: When the DA goes after the swatter he'll have to convince the jury that he should have known that the act of swatting is likely to result in bodily harm for innocent people. This is essentially arguing that interactions with the police can result in your death even if you did nothing wrong. Isn't it nice to know that interactions with the police have to follow the same rules as if you were forced to interact with street thugs: No sudden movements, no provocations and be prepared to die for no reason at all.
Plus: Said street thugs would be a lot more likely to be convicted of a crime if they harmed you.