ouchSeemed like a lifetime...
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
ouchSeemed like a lifetime...
I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure a court would agree.My point is that you don’t “know” something because someone says it. If he regarded the guy as a greater threat based on hearing that than if he hadn’t, and therefore shot him when he otherwise would not have, then that’s a problem, not a defense. Cops are not generally credulous people, but there are apparently contexts where they’ll believe anything and act on that belief.
if this is true this is going to turn into more of a shit show than it already is....perhaps now it is clear why the female deputy seemed fearless? She knew he wasn't a threat? Also perhaps she should have communicated to all other deputies this information?More from the Daily Mail:
"In the statement, [lawyer Mark] NeJame went on to claim that the third man involved in the shooting was a 'known menace and danger' to the Heritage Hotel residents.
He insisted that Richardson had been holding his gun to provide protection to the first deputy on scene and the former EMT who was rendering aid to his brother, as the third man was still in the area.
According to the statement, the first deputy on the scene, the deputy's female partner, gave Richardson consent to do so and knew he was armed with a gun."
Oh, I'm not saying it's a legal problem. I think from a legal standpoint it's going to help justify the shooting. But I think it's possible that the person who shouted that did so with animus and the intent of putting the guy into the crosshairs, and this possibility should be something that is always considered to some extent.I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure a court would agree.
That’s certainly possible. The legal standard is “knowing what you knew at the time.” What you thought you knew at the time may not turn out to have been true, but that doesn’t really count.Oh, I'm not saying it's a legal problem. I think from a legal standpoint it's going to help justify the shooting. But I think it's possible that the person who shouted that did so with animus and the intent of putting the guy into the crosshairs, and this possibility should be something that is always considered to some extent.
I think the same argument might be able to be made about the statements of the witness that “he’s point the gun at people”.
Isn't that cop "retired" at 28 and gets a $31000 pension for the rest of his life?They're going to say that the utterance contributed to a reasonable belief that the guy was an imminent threat to others. I don't personally buy the "reasonableness" of taking that utterance at face value, but I may be outside of the category of people who define what is "reasonable" to believe. "Replica" shootings are ultimately based on what the officer sees in the moment that they pull the trigger. I'd be more comfortable with this shooting if the same kind of justification were clear. There was that moment in the Daniel Shaver shooting where Daniel Shaver quickly went to pull up his pants after being warned not to do that sh*t because it looked like reaching for a gun in the waistband. If there had been a twitch like that, something... My guess is that this deputy received a huge adrenaline dump, couldn't hear jack, and was looking through a drinking straw when he fired. Just a guess.
The very one, but he was the guy who fired. This is the guy who ran the fk'd up game of Simon Says.Isn't that cop "retired" at 28 and gets a $31000 pension for the rest of his life?
View attachment 655780