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

[Route 45]

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.

"Two strangers?"

Threatening someone with a gun inside a public place, then crouching down beside a car and basically ignoring officers is hardly reasonable behavior.

You ever think about a career in journalism?

 

[JettaKnight]

"Two strangers?"

Well, it fits the theme of this thread about a man legal OC outside a restaurant, minding his own business.

 

[cce1302]

"Two strangers?"

Threatening someone with a gun inside a public place, then crouching down beside a car and basically ignoring officers is hardly reasonable behavior.

You ever think about a career in journalism?

Was he shot for what he allegedly did before the police arrived, or for what he did in the video?

 

[KLB]

Was he shot for what he allegedly did before the police arrived, or for what he did in the video?

Yes.

 

[cce1302]

Yes.

And that's why this shooting bothers me.

 

[KLB]

And that's why this shooting bothers me.

I understand completely. As usual, we only have a small portion of the story. The question is, will we ever know much more?

On the surface, the guy was shot while trying to obey the order that was shouted at him a large number of times. He even says right after he is shot, "you told to..."

I also noticed only the one officer fired.

 

[Denny347]

ALL details are important when determining if a UoF was legal or not. You guys are trying to make a determination without ANY details from the officers who applied the force. From the SCOTUS's mouth:
"As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining when an officer's use of force is objectively unreasonable: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," and "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

I'm not sure I can explain it more clear for those that don't understand. This shooting might be bad, it might bother some people's sensibilities, some people might down right hate it, but without knowing all the facts you are basing your decisions on pure emotion. We know how ineffective making decisions based on emotions can be.

 

[Denny347]

I also noticed only the one officer fired.

In my OIS, I did not fire my weapon, my partner on the scene did. I was at a different angle and did not see what he saw. It was a good shooting but we are trained that EACH officer must see the deadly force threat independent of each other. No sympathetic gunfire.

 

[Dead Duck]

ALL details are important when determining if a UoF was legal or not. You guys are trying to make a determination without ANY details from the officers who applied the force. From the SCOTUS's mouth:
"As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining when an officer's use of force is objectively unreasonable: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," and "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

I'm not sure I can explain it more clear for those that don't understand. This shooting might be bad, it might bother some people's sensibilities, some people might down right hate it, but without knowing all the facts you are basing your decisions on pure emotion. We know how ineffective making decisions based on emotions can be.

This is exactly why we need to bring back RoboCop.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This is exactly why we need to bring back RoboCop.

I’d love to see the YouTube video of some hipster screaming “I know my rights” while robocop beats him down

 

[cce1302]

You were not posting a simple answer to anything. Your original post implies that the guy who was shot after having done nothing wrong. I don't condone the 2 officers giving orders. 1 voice is always best. However, they were NOT contradicting each other, they were saying the same thing, so I'm not overly concerned with it. Your original statement is one you were involved in personally correct? If that is correct, I am sorry that happened to you but that has nothing to do with this. This thread is here to judge the officer's actions in the video. Contrary to many assertions already made here, there is not enough information to make a determination. If I was at work and asked to render an opinion on the reasonableness of the UoF, there is no way I could based SOLELY on the video clip we have. How could anyone else?

My original post implies that he was shot while doing nothing wrong. Not after.
from my angle, I ask if anything unlawful is being done by the victim at the time of the shooting, as shown from the perspective of the camera worn by the shooter. Those who attempt to answer fail to identify anything unlawful. You haven't bothered to answer that one, but take issue with those who can't see an active threat.

One of the bigger issues here for me are those who condone the shooting seemingly based solely on what was alleged to have occurred before the police arrived. I don't know of any exceptions to the law in NC that allow police to shoot a suspect because he threatened someone shortly before they arrived.

 

[JettaKnight]

My original post implies that he was shot while doing nothing wrong. Not after.
from my angle, I ask if anything unlawful is being done by the victim at the time of the shooting, as shown from the perspective of the camera worn by the shooter. Those who attempt to answer fail to identify anything unlawful. You haven't bothered to answer that one, but take issue with those who can't see an active threat.

One of the bigger issues here for me are those who condone the shooting seemingly based solely on what was alleged to have occurred before the police arrived. I don't know of any exceptions to the law in NC that allow police to shoot a suspect because he threatened someone shortly before they arrived.

You seem to have made up your mind on this.

 

[chipbennett]

My original post implies that he was shot while doing nothing wrong. Not after.
from my angle, I ask if anything unlawful is being done by the victim at the time of the shooting, as shown from the perspective of the camera worn by the shooter. Those who attempt to answer fail to identify anything unlawful. You haven't bothered to answer that one, but take issue with those who can't see an active threat.

One of the bigger issues here for me are those who condone the shooting seemingly based solely on what was alleged to have occurred before the police arrived. I don't know of any exceptions to the law in NC that allow police to shoot a suspect because he threatened someone shortly before they arrived.

There is a false premise involved here. The reasonableness of the officers' actions and determination whether the use of deadly force was justified do not depend on something unlawful being done at the time of the use of deadly force. The justification for use of deadly force depends on the reasonableness of the officer's fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm (n.b. worded various ways in applicable statutes) at the moment deadly force was used.

It ultimately doesn't matter if Franklin was doing anything lawful or unlawful, or whether he was manipulating his firearm for the purpose of putting it on the ground or for the purpose of using it against the officers, the person in the car, himself, or others. What matters is whether the officers' belief that Franklin was imminently going to use the firearm in an unlawful manner was reasonable or not.

That's why context - including facts and information known to the officers, and observations and evaluations made by the officers, in the moments leading up to the use of deadly force - matters, and 20/20 hindsight evaluation does not matter.

 

[Denny347]

There is a false premise involved here. The reasonableness of the officers' actions and determination whether the use of deadly force was justified do not depend on something unlawful being done at the time of the use of deadly force. The justification for use of deadly force depends on the reasonableness of the officer's fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm (n.b. worded various ways in applicable statutes) at the moment deadly force was used.

It ultimately doesn't matter if Franklin was doing anything lawful or unlawful, or whether he was manipulating his firearm for the purpose of putting it on the ground or for the purpose of using it against the officers, the person in the car, himself, or others. What matters is whether the officers' belief that Franklin was imminently going to use the firearm in an unlawful manner was reasonable or not.

That's why context - including facts and information known to the officers, and observations and evaluations made by the officers, in the moments leading up to the use of deadly force - matters, and 20/20 hindsight evaluation does not matter.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[cce1302]

There is a false premise involved here. The reasonableness of the officers' actions and determination whether the use of deadly force was justified do not depend on something unlawful being done at the time of the use of deadly force. The justification for use of deadly force depends on the reasonableness of the officer's fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm (n.b. worded various ways in applicable statutes) at the moment deadly force was used.

It ultimately doesn't matter if Franklin was doing anything lawful or unlawful, or whether he was manipulating his firearm for the purpose of putting it on the ground or for the purpose of using it against the officers, the person in the car, himself, or others. What matters is whether the officers' belief that Franklin was imminently going to use the firearm in an unlawful manner was reasonable or not.

That's why context - including facts and information known to the officers, and observations and evaluations made by the officers, in the moments leading up to the use of deadly force - matters, and 20/20 hindsight evaluation does not matter.

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?

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.

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.

 

[hpclayto]

Apparently basic case law is hard to understand.

 

[Denny347]

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?

It matters what the officers REASONABLY believed he was doing.

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, SCOTUS explicitly stated NO. I've never testified to anything based on hindsight and I cannot use it at work when looking at officer's UoF reasonableness.

 

[cce1302]

Fortunately the department has just today released the full 11 minute video.

The detectives have also turned over the investigation file to the District Attorney's office today.

CMPD releases full video of fatal officer-involved shooting of Danquirs Franklin

 

[cce1302]

It matters what the officers REASONABLY believed he was doing.



No, SCOTUS explicitly stated NO. I've never testified to anything based on hindsight and I cannot use it at work when looking at officer's UoF reasonableness.

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

 

[Denny347]

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

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