(05-15-2019, 10:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: No she was shot while pointing the taser she was able to wrestle away at him. 

(05-15-2019, 10:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Pointing while she was sitting?

(05-15-2019, 10:21 AM)Au165 Wrote: You mean point while on the ground after removing the weapon from the officer in a struggle? Yes.  There are plenty of unwarranted shootings, this is not one.

(05-15-2019, 10:26 AM)Dill Wrote: After removing a  deadly weapon?

(05-15-2019, 10:28 AM)Au165 Wrote: After removing a weapon that could incapacitate the officer putting his life in jeopardy, yes. Everything about this meets the guidelines for use of deadly force, as it should.

(05-15-2019, 10:38 AM)Dill Wrote: The "objective reasonableness" test?

(05-15-2019, 09:51 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Thank god black people have such a great ally like GMDino  

(05-15-2019, 10:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't think you actually know what your doing here with this one as you are making my point for me. If you did you'd know that her resisting through physical struggle along with her gaining access to a weapon has been routinely affirmed by courts as acceptable factors to use deadly force even in a post Graham vs Connor era.

It's funny that Graham vs Connor actually is meant to stop the second guessing which you are doing here. The objective reasonableness test is meant to frame it based on an average officer in that situation, not someone online saying what they should have done instead.

“Under Graham, we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure.”
Smith v. Freland, 954 F2d 343, 347 (6th Cir. 1992)

Quote:A police officer in southern Michigan has been fired after body camera video showed him striking a handcuffed 13-year-old boy in the back of a patrol car.


Albion police say the officer, whose name hasn't been released, violated departmental policies and was fired in February.

The teen's grandparents called police on Nov. 24 of this year, saying the boy had threatened them with a pen.

In body cam footage obtained by MLive and other media outlets, an officer is heard telling the teen:"I've got several other people telling me you went after her," while the boy continues to insist he did nothing wrong. 

**Note: Video may be disturbing to some viewers. 





The cuffed teen says "officer, please help," as he tries to ger out of the patrol car.  An officer orders him again and again to stay in the vehicle while the teen screams and struggles to get out, saying at one point: "I need to eat dinner." Eventually the officer hits the teen. 

Pepper spray also was used, according to a police report, which states that the teen has the mental maturity of a 7-year-old.

WXMI-TV reports that a rally protesting alleged police brutality in the case was held Thursday in an Albion, about 95 miles west of Detroit.

The officer involved had been to the home before, and officials say he knew about the boy's condition.

The teen's mother told the TV station she feels devastated and angry about what occurred. “Almost betrayed, they had a rapport," she said. "He knew his condition.”

No criminal charges have been filed. 

(05-15-2019, 11:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: Never want to "second guess" an officer who feels threatened.

https://wwjnewsradio.radio.com/articles/michigan-cop-fired-after-video-shows-him-striking-13-year-old-boy



Now this kind of thing is what happens when people call the police to handle something they are NOT trained to handle.  (A mentally slow boy with a physical disability who is "acting out".)

But he "resisted" so what's a guy to do but repeatedly punch him while he's handcuffed?

Sidenote:  While the officer got fired...they still haven't released him name.  Seems legit.

(05-15-2019, 11:12 AM)Au165 Wrote: Is that what an reasonable officer would do in that moment? I would guess no since he was fired. Which would mean it did not pass the test created by Graham vs Connor, which is kind of my point.

(05-15-2019, 11:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: My point is we second guess all the time.  And many times (most) the officer is not fired, or reprimanded.  

In fact let's see if this unnamed officer isn't simply hired somewhere else (or gets his old job back) in awhile.

(05-15-2019, 10:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't think you actually know what your doing here with this one as you are making my point for me. If you did you'd know that her resisting through physical struggle along with her gaining access to a weapon has been routinely affirmed by courts as acceptable factors to use deadly force even in a post Graham vs Connor era.

It's funny that Graham vs Connor actually is meant to stop the second guessing which you are doing here. The objective reasonableness test is meant to frame it based on an average officer in that situation, not someone online saying what they should have done instead.

“Under Graham, we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure.”
Smith v. Freland, 954 F2d 343, 347 (6th Cir. 1992)

(05-15-2019, 10:28 AM)Au165 Wrote: After removing a weapon that could incapacitate the officer putting his life in jeopardy, yes. Everything about this meets the guidelines for use of deadly force, as it should.

(05-15-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Analyzing this question from my online leisure,  looks like an "average officer" let a girl take away his taser.

Then killed her.

(05-15-2019, 02:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sexist comments are sexist. 

(05-15-2019, 12:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And posts not about the subject is trolling. 

(05-15-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Analyzing this question from my sanitized position of online leisure, 

looks like an "average officer" let a girl take away his taser.

Then killed her.

(05-15-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Analyzing this question from my sanitized position of online leisure, 

looks like an "average officer" let a girl take away his taser.

Then killed her.

(05-15-2019, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(05-15-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO anyone who has issue with this shooting would have issue with any shooting. He first asked she refused, she then became combative, he tried to subdue her with non-lethal methods, she then removed his weapon and fired at him, at that point he had been forced into using deadly force. 

(05-15-2019, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course my comment is about the subject. Dill felt compelled to point out the person shot was female (actually called her a girl); thereby, providing an extra "excuse" why the shooting was unnecessary.

But keep trying.