There’s also no evidence that the officer did not vigorously roger Mr. Wingate with the golfclub while screaming Heil Hitler.
I’m just saying. On the strength of the non-evidence, we’re forced to conclude it’s probable.
Later in the article they mention that another officer at the scene lied about what happened to make it seem like a good shooting. I hope they charge that other lying fucker too.
Thank god for body cams–without them this would have been called a legitimate shooting and the officer would have been called a hero.
Because the officer was wearing a body cam, even though certain members of society and this board might still call him a hero, luckily they’ll be in the minority.
Good on the prosecutor for charging this case. I still think we need an independent prosecutor to investigate officer-related shootings, but at least this time it’s working out.
But according to S&S, that cop had every right to blow that man away!
Yeah, how do we know that the driver was not thinking about running the cop over?
Better shoot him to be safe.
The officer is claiming he was in fear for his life. That’s the criterion, right?
What does any video or indictment or prosecution have to contribute that could contradict the officer’s own fear for his life?
Here’s the body cam video of the stop. The action starts around 4:00, which is where it should start if the follow the link.
Honestly, I can’t figure out what’s going on near the end. It looks like the officer shot him and then the car rolled away, or something?
It looks like the cop told the driver to step out, the driver started the car, the cop shot him and I’m guessing that caused the driver’s foot to mash the gas pedal, the car took off and plowed into something then stopped. Motherfucker.
No. Never has been, and no-one, ever, on this board has claimed it to be. You lying, straw-manning arsehole.
As that’s not the standard, it doesn’t matter. It’s necessary for him to have been in fear for his life, but not sufficient. If the evidence proves that no reasonable person could have been in fear for their life, then it’s murder.
To quote from the article, “This office has probably reviewed upwards of hundreds of police shootings, and this is the first time that we’ve thought this is without question a murder”. Sounds about right, one in hundreds of these stupid “controversies” is actually a serious crime.
It is not quite the clear straw man you’re making it out to be. Bricker for example has stated that he would credit the “lighter=threat” testimony despite agreeing that it seems on the face of it preposterous. You have stated that the defendant should be given all the benefit of the doubt, in the context of explaining why it should be believed that a policeman fears for his life.
If the principle you guys are referring to isn’t either “Policemen should be trusted when they say they are in fear for their lives” or something that implies that, then you owe us an explanation as to what that principle is. Because it very much looks like that is your principle.
Of course they should be given the benefit of the doubt, same as any defendant.
It looks nothing like that, and you well know it. Stop deliberately twisting things.
Some one who claims to have acted in self defence is, in law, innocent until proven guilty (in 49 states, as discussed earlier). Doesn’t matter whether or not you believe them, you have to prove not only that they’re lying but specifically that the opposite of what they said was true.
Someone as determinedly misunderstood as you might consider trying to restate their positions more clearly. Just a suggestion.
Authorities: Off-Duty Trooper Fired at Car With 3 Inside
My italics
Mmmm… Shouldn’t the trooper have shot them at his door (claiming fear for his life; and maybe with some justification)?
Shooting at a fleeing car?
How is Smapti going to spin that?
The officer in that case Is claiming the case was dragging him.
This case too? I think that’s what the UC cop was claiming.
Three times is a pattern.
False. Smapti makes a career of claiming cops have every right to kill people when they can even remotely claim to be in fear.
Nope. You need to actually read people posts occasionally, rather than just whatever you want to be there so it’s easier for you to argue about.
Smapti also thinks cops should only shoot when it’s reasonable for them to feel fear - but he has a much more inclusive view of when that would be reasonable than anybody else.
I notice that the vehicle’s engine is not running while the officer approaches the car and driver. After repeatedly ignoring the officer’s request to produce his drivers license:
at 5:52 in the linked video, the suspect reaches for the driver’s door with his left hand and reaches for the ignition key with his right hand.
at 5:54, the suspect starts his vehicle and puts it in gear.
at 5:55, the officer says stop.
at 5:56, the officer repeats his command to stop.
at 5:57, the officer fires a shot at the fleeing vehicle’s driver.
the moving, in forward-gear, vehicle rolls to a dead stop farther down the road.
It looks like the car was rolling away, and then the officer shot the driver.
It seems to include “Fear that they might have to do some paperwork,” and “Fear that they might not get home in time for dinner.”
Sorry, I meant “car” not “case”.