Cop orders man to put legal OC gun on ground. Kills him when he tries to comply.

[chipbennett]

It doesn't matter if he was putting it on the ground in response to the officers' repeated commands to put it on the ground?

No. First, what matters is what the officers reasonably believed he was doing. Second, that he failed to comply or respond after so many repeated commands is relevant to the mindset of the officers and what would have been reasonable for them to believe at that moment.

And I use the term "unlawful" as an umbrella to cover things like threatening imminent death or grave bodily harm or any other crime for which deadly force would be authorized (because they are worded in various ways in applicable statutes). So if he was threatening death or bodily harm against a person at that time, it would be an unlawful act.

It doesn't matter if he was actually threatening death or great bodily harm at that time; what matters is whether the officers reasonably believed that he was doing so.

And 20/20 hindsight evaluation doesn't matter? why do we even bother having courts then? That's literally what court verdicts are based on.

No. 20/20 hindsight evaluation does not matter. We bother having courts in order to evaluate the reasonableness of the actions, beliefs, and fears of the actors in question at the moment they acted, based on the information at hand to those actors at the moment they acted.

Are you even familiar with the concept of the reasonable man standard? If you carry a firearm, you damn well ought to be, or you have no business carrying a firearm.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sorry, not what verdicts are based on. Hindsight evaluation is what court verdicts are.

Time to drag out a tied old meme...

meh... you all know it.


I'm going to use this defense: "Well your honor, you see, in hindsight, had I known the officer would be sitting with his RADAR gun, I wouldn't have been speeding."

 

[cce1302]

Jury nullification maybe. Please give me an example where 20/20 would be used in a verdict. I cannot think of any off hand.

Hindsight is the understanding of an event after it has happened.

A verdict is a decision made based on the jury's understanding of information gathered after an event has happened.

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess we weren't there."

Full 11 minutes here:
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article229631674.html#storylink=readnext

 

[LP1]

If only there was some way to avoid regular interaction with the police...

That's a ridiculously simplistic response to a very complex problem. Are you being willfully blind?

It's clear that certain groups are subjected to greater police scrutiny. Have you heard of stop-and-frisk? Thankfully, it's not done here AFAIK. I don't understand how it's allowed, but it does happen. And some people who have suffered in police interactions did little or nothing to cause it - two deaths in Minneapolis come to mind. The guy shot along the road near Crawfordsville "caused" the interaction with police by working on a disabled car.

Ask a black friend who has kids, especially boys, about "the talk". Hint: it isn't "the talk" that we got.

I'm certainly not anti-police, but I can understand how members of certain groups have a deep fear and distrust of them. And it's also easy to understand how that fear and distrust can lead to inappropriate or disrespectful actions towards officers.

Simply saying "don't do anything wrong and you won't have an issue" is not only false and misleading, it also contributes nothing toward solving the problem.

 

[cce1302]

Time to drag out a tied old meme...

meh... you all know it.


I'm going to use this defense: "Well your honor, you see, in hindsight, had I known the officer would be sitting with his RADAR gun, I wouldn't have been speeding."

Nah, just accuse him of using hindsight to judge you. "OFficer, you weren't there!! How can you sit and judge me??" since hindsight evaluation doesn't matter and his understanding came after the event in question.

 

[chipbennett]

That's a ridiculously simplistic response to a very complex problem. Are you being willfully blind?

It's clear that certain groups are subjected to greater police scrutiny. Have you heard of stop-and-frisk? Thankfully, it's not done here AFAIK. I don't understand how it's allowed, but it does happen. And some people who have suffered in police interactions did little or nothing to cause it - two deaths in Minneapolis come to mind. The guy shot along the road near Crawfordsville "caused" the interaction with police by working on a disabled car.

Ask a black friend who has kids, especially boys, about "the talk". Hint: it isn't "the talk" that we got.

I'm certainly not anti-police, but I can understand how members of certain groups have a deep fear and distrust of them. And it's also easy to understand how that fear and distrust can lead to inappropriate or disrespectful actions towards officers.

Simply saying "don't do anything wrong and you won't have an issue" is not only false and misleading, it also contributes nothing toward solving the problem.

Yes, that group of people is known as "criminals".

Do tell: would either officer have been at that Burger King if Franklin had not been committing the acts that led to multiple 911 calls and a police dispatch for assault with a deadly weapon?

 

[chipbennett]

Nah, just accuse him of using hindsight to judge you. "OFficer, you weren't there!! How can you sit and judge me??" since hindsight evaluation doesn't matter and his understanding came after the event in question.

Except, the officer was there, with the radar gun, gathering real-time information about a traffic violation. No hindsight required.

 

[Denny347]

Hindsight is the understanding of an event after it has happened.

A verdict is a decision made based on the jury's understanding of information gathered after an event has happened.

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess we weren't there."

Full 11 minutes here:
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article229631674.html#storylink=readnext

Nah, just accuse him of using hindsight to judge you. "OFficer, you weren't there!! How can you sit and judge me??" since hindsight evaluation doesn't matter and his understanding came after the event in question.

It seems as though you are using the term "hindsight" to refer understanding an event after the fact. Thats great. I and the SCOTUS are referring to 20/20 hindsight as making a determination based on what was learned AFTER the fact, that is wrong. We certainly CAN judge officers actions BUT we can only use what the officer knew at the time of the UoF. We cannot use new information the officer could not have known at the time to base that judgement on.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems as though you are using the term "hindsight" to refer understanding an event after the fact. Thats great. I and the SCOTUS are referring to 20/20 hindsight as making a determination based on what was learned AFTER the fact, that is wrong. We certainly CAN judge officers actions BUT we can only use what the officer knew at the time of the UoF. We cannot use new information the officer could not have known at the time to base that judgement on.

What about things the officers "know" which prove false. For example, three of Shannon's Misguided Mommies see a pro-2A sticker on my truck as they walk in behind me, all 3 make separate MWAG calls professing to be pissing themselves in fear, and the police arrive to find me armed with a hamburger and shoot me for "refusing" to drop the gun I don't have on my person?

 

[Dead Duck]

What about things the officers "know" which prove false. For example, three of Shannon's Misguided Mommies see a pro-2A sticker on my truck as they walk in behind me, all 3 make separate MWAG calls professing to be pissing themselves in fear, and the police arrive to find me armed with a hamburger and shoot me for "refusing" to drop the gun I don't have on my person?

That all depends on which hamburger you had.
Eating certain burgers can kill you and that alone is attempted murder.

 

[Denny347]

What about things the officers "know" which prove false. For example, three of Shannon's Misguided Mommies see a pro-2A sticker on my truck as they walk in behind me, all 3 make separate MWAG calls professing to be pissing themselves in fear, and the police arrive to find me armed with a hamburger and shoot me for "refusing" to drop the gun I don't have on my person?

Yes, a call BY ITSELF would not be enough. A call with independent officer observations that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that they or a third part was at risk for SBI or death...yes. What those independent observations could be are infinite. IMPD just put out another reminder that it's illegal for officers to stop persons solely for carrying a gun and other related information ahead of the NRA Convention. Just to be on the safe side.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That all depends on which hamburger you had.
Eating certain burgers can kill you and that alone is attempted murder.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, a call BY ITSELF would not be enough. A call with independent officer observations that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that they or a third part was at risk for SBI or death...yes. What those independent observations could be are infinite. IMPD just put out another reminder that it's illegal for officers to stop persons solely for carrying a gun and other related information ahead of the NRA Convention. Just to be on the safe side.

Thanks for the information.

 

[chipbennett]

What about things the officers "know" which prove false. For example, three of Shannon's Misguided Mommies see a pro-2A sticker on my truck as they walk in behind me, all 3 make separate MWAG calls professing to be pissing themselves in fear, and the police arrive to find me armed with a hamburger and shoot me for "refusing" to drop the gun I don't have on my person?

You just described a slightly more-exaggerated version of what happened to John Crawford III. SWATting is dangerous, and should have harsh penalties. Additionally, the dispatcher should ask for the unlawful, threatening, suspicious behavior to which officers are responding, and decline to dispatch officers without articulation of such behavior. (After all, "MWAG" is not just cause for police involvement, if nothing unlawful is happening.)

Of course, that doesn't apply to this situation, since Franklin was, in fact, engaging in unlawful and threatening behavior - behavior that was articulated by witnesses to the police dispatcher.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You just described a slightly more-exaggerated version of what happened to John Crawford III. SWATting is dangerous, and should have harsh penalties. Additionally, the dispatcher should ask for the unlawful, threatening, suspicious behavior to which officers are responding, and decline to dispatch officers without articulation of such behavior. (After all, "MWAG" is not just cause for police involvement, if nothing unlawful is happening.)

Of course, that doesn't apply to this situation, since Franklin was, in fact, engaging in unlawful and threatening behavior - behavior that was articulated by witnesses to the police dispatcher.

I took it for granted that people making false reports could supply equally false descriptions of specific illegal activity.

 

[Ziggidy]

So many "what ifs"

 

[ziggy]

I realize there may be situations where a person is hearing impaired, but if an officer is pointing a gun at me and yelling, I will at the least get my hands up. Why this guy did not speak to the officers or show some cooperation is a mystery to me. I know little about the whole situation, but it did seem the officer was perhaps too trigger-happy and could have waited longer to see the intent of the deceased. Tough situation for the officer, that is for sure.

 

[HoughMade]

Hindsight is the understanding of an event after it has happened.

A verdict is a decision made based on the jury's understanding of information gathered after an event has happened...

No. Hindsight is claiming that different actions should have been taken because you now know what the outcome of those actions is. There are specific jury instructions that a jury is not supposed to evaluate action based upon information learned after the fact that the defendant could not have known at the time.

At least that’s what hindsight is to a trial attorney.

 

[chipbennett]

I took it for granted that people making false reports could supply equally false descriptions of specific illegal activity.

...which is why I brought up SWATting, which is what false reports constitute.

 

[KG1]

This is precisely where we disagree. Absent a legal prohibition, all things are lawful.

The suspect's actions in the video-freeze, then moving as slowly and deliberately as possible when being screamed at by two strangers threatening his life-are exactly the way a reasonable person acts.

Reminds me a little bit of Randy Weaver. He thought the government was out to get him so he moved to a remote corner of Idaho.

They found him. We all know what happened after that.