Wild West on the Common

Yeah, it's impossible that the officer was justified. We know that from the exhaustive article at the link you posted. We don't need no stinkin' facts, the cop HAS to be wrong.

Gary
 
Police and probation officers were in the area conducting "threshold inquiries" -- interviewing people who seemed as if they might be involved in criminal activity, Officer Eddy Chrispin, a police spokesman, said.

Papers please!!!
 
The link the original poster attached now leads to a story. At first, the link led to a short paragraph with little to no information. The police near the Boston Common must have had quite a crowd of people "who seemed as if they might be involved in criminal activity" in line for the interviews. L.O.L.
Best Regards.
 
Yeah, it's impossible that the officer was justified. We know that from the exhaustive article at the link you posted. We don't need no stinkin' facts, the cop HAS to be wrong.

Gary

Hey, calm down and take your ritalin. I never said the cop wasn't justified.

+1 For ever person whose knee-jerk reaction in the complete absence of any real facts is like Garys assumes, there are a few dozen who immediately conclude that whatever might have happened, the cop has to be completely right.

Ken
 
+1 For ever person whose knee-jerk reaction in the complete absence of any real facts is like Garys assumes, there are a few dozen who immediately conclude that whatever might have happened, the cop has to be completely right.

Ken

Anything that starts with cops pulling citizens who look guilty of "something" aside and interviewing them usually causes me to automatically put one foot in the victims camp.

I don't have any facts. It sounds like the guy was a moron. Who pulls a fake gun on someone? That being said, I'd be pretty irate if the cops grilled me for standing in a park.
 
Who pulls a fake gun on someone?

The only thing I can think of is that they are desirous of suicide by cop.

How exactly do you "seem" like you might be involved in criminal activity? Based solely on the way you look or actions the police are observing from afar? I can understand if they saw a drug transaction or the like, but just "seeming" to be committing a crime is a stretch as justification for questioning people.

Maybe more facts will come out soon to clarify some of the issues.
 
Last edited:
If you want to debate something fine. If you want to be insulting and condescending, not fine.

Gary

Not sure there is much to debate here.

I just heard the anchor on WHDH say "He was shot in the arm when he was running away from the police holding a replica gun." I assume she left out the part where he pointed that gun at the police.

What GaryS is referring to is a Terry stop. It is not understood all that well by the police (I am assuming GaryS is a police officer himself by raising it in the first place).

The police think Terry v. Ohio is a license to stop anyone they want for anything. SCOTUS never said that. Instead, they held that if the police have a reasonable suspicion (not necessarily rising to the level of probable cause) that someone has committed a crime or may be committing a crime, they can stop them and search their person for weapons (for example, for protection of the police officer themselves). Basically, under certain circumstances the police don't have to go to the trouble of getting a warrant before they can search you.

The "reasonable suspicion" cannot be based on race, the way someone looks or their prior actions, but instead must be based on specific facts. Hunches do not count and will get any evidence obtained excluded from trial (happens quite a bit and gets the ACLU and Al Sharpton going because of the random Terry stops that occur more often in certain neighborhoods).


SCOTUS also articulated that if you are subject to a Terry stop, you do not have to answer any of the police's questions. You can simply indicate you are exercising your rights to be silent and keep walking (though you may have to tell them your name, which has held to comply with the 4th and 5th amendments).

So back to the facts at hand, apparently the police were questioning him about an outstanding warrant. So Terry doesn't apply here because they would have probable cause to arrest him for the outstanding warrant. My guess is he was already known to the police in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Two points. First, don't assume anything about me. Second, don't believe anything that you hear on the TV news.

Apparently Martlet, in this case the police didn't just stop someone for looking suspicious, they stopped someone that they thought there was a warrant out for. Much different set of circumstances, I think.

Gary
 
Two points. First, don't assume anything about me. Second, don't believe anything that you hear on the TV news.

Apparently Martlet, in this case the police didn't just stop someone for looking suspicious, they stopped someone that they thought there was a warrant out for. Much different set of circumstances, I think.

Gary

While I agree with you that the TV news isn't exactly credible all the time, they usually err on the side of making the MA govt. and their officials look good and not bad. Otherwise big brother comes down hard on them.

I also agree that if police recognized the person and determined he had an outstanding warrant, they had cause to question him.

The part I have trouble with (if true) is shooting him when he was running away from them. Neither you nor I could do that and be justified even if said person was armed.
 
Apparently Martlet, in this case the police didn't just stop someone for looking suspicious, they stopped someone that they thought there was a warrant out for. Much different set of circumstances, I think.

Gary

First, just because the SCOTUS, a Legislative body, or the PD says it's ok doesn't mean I like it, it's a just decision, or it isn't an infringement of my freedom.

While THIS specific person may have "looked" like someone who had a warrant, the police said they were stopping people who looked like they were up to no good.
 
First, just because the SCOTUS, a Legislative body, or the PD says it's ok doesn't mean I like it, it's a just decision, or it isn't an infringement of my freedom.

While THIS specific person may have "looked" like someone who had a warrant, the police said they were stopping people who looked like they were up to no good.


+1. This kind of crap is exactly what is NOT supposed to happen. Who gets to decide what "up to no good" means anyway. Certainly not a policeman out in the streets. I imagine most people appear up to no good to them.
 
First, just because the SCOTUS, a Legislative body, or the PD says it's ok doesn't mean I like it, it's a just decision, or it isn't an infringement of my freedom.

While THIS specific person may have "looked" like someone who had a warrant, the police said they were stopping people who looked like they were up to no good.

What. Ever.

Gary
 
Also just to stick the knife a bit further in, there is no proof that TJ actually said "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

So, you may want to add an "allegedly said by" into your quotation.

Just thought I would [pot].
 
The part I have trouble with (if true) is shooting him when he was running away from them. Neither you nor I could do that and be justified even if said person was armed.

We're not cops. Neither you nor I could pull over a speeder and get away with it. Perhaps the officer thought shooting the guy was better than letting him run away holding a gun (especially if he was known to them and/or had an outstanding warrant).
 
We're not cops. Neither you nor I could pull over a speeder and get away with it. Perhaps the officer thought shooting the guy was better than letting him run away holding a gun (especially if he was known to them and/or had an outstanding warrant).

True, but the same laws apply to the police regarding the use of deadly force. If not presented with deadly force (in the case where someone is running away from you), you do not have a right to use deadly force. Whether you are or are not a cop is immaterial.

It will be interesting to see if he was shot in the front or the back of the shoulder. Hopefully, for this cop's sake, not in the back.
 
Whether you are or are not a cop is immaterial.

Maybe according to the letter of the law but IMHO the LEO is going to get considerably more latitude with some things (eg, "escalation") and potentially less latitude with others (eg, use of force, etc. ) Like it or not, LEOs will get treated differently in court than non LEOs, at least to some degree, especially WRT on duty incidents.

It will be interesting to see if he was shot in the front or the back of the shoulder. Hopefully, for this cop's sake, not in the back.

IMO just because someone is shot in the back doesn't mean it's a slam
dunk "bad shoot". Even Mas Ayoob has said that there have been numerous
good shoots where a LEO or defender has ended up shooting someone "in
the back" because thats how the scenario played out. People move
quickly- and the interval between the decision to fire and the perp turning
might be milliseconds, or you might be firing at a target which is moving in
such a way that a bullet might not enter his body in a manner a layperson
would expect. A perp could also intentionally put his back towards a LEO
to conceal the drawing of a weapon, among other things. Whoever is
defending the LEO is going to bring up all these things during the trial, if they
apply.

-Mike
 
True, but the same laws apply to the police regarding the use of deadly force. If not presented with deadly force (in the case where someone is running away from you), you do not have a right to use deadly force. Whether you are or are not a cop is immaterial.

It will be interesting to see if he was shot in the front or the back of the shoulder. Hopefully, for this cop's sake, not in the back.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a person who is running away can not be shot. That is simply incorrect. In certain circumstances, police officers can shoot people who are running away, see Tenn. v Garner. Whether this situation meets those requirements is a different matter.

Also, people can turn very quickly, in the time between the decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun actually fires.
 
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a person who is running away can not be shot. That is simply incorrect. In certain circumstances, police officers can shoot people who are running away, see Tenn. v Garner. Whether this situation meets those requirements is a different matter.

Also, people can turn very quickly, in the time between the decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun actually fires.

Tenn. v. Gardner is a very narrow holding - when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, they may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Very rarely does SCOTUS use the word "only" in their holdings. In Tenn v. Garner, SCOTUS indicated it was not reasonable to shoot the burglar as he was fleeing and unarmed.

That case was also a 4th amendment case and not a reasonable force case. In other words, apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure of the person under 4A, which could be permissible only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
 
Sigh. I don't suppose that you noticed this in my response:
In certain circumstances, police officers can shoot people who are running away

Did I say that Tenn. v. Garner (and it is Garner not Gardner) was a broad decision? Did I even imply it? No, I did not.

We don't know the true circumstances of the situation on the Common, but for argument's sake, let's assume that what has been described did occur -- the perp ran away from police officers and drew a gun while doing so (the fact that it turned out later to be a fake gun is immaterial).

Now would a reasonable person, knowing what the officer knew at the time, believe the individual to pose significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others? Running away from a police officer and drawing a gun while doing so?

Are you truly asserting that the police officer would not think such a person was serious threat to others?
 
Back
Top Bottom