Michigan teenager shot during traffic stop

[Arthur Dent]

You're right, No I have no idea-
But I do know what he wasn't taught. Proofs on the [STRIKE]pudding[/STRIKE] video.

None of which changes the fact the cop pulled him over for no legal reason.

 

[Denny347]

None of which changes the fact the cop pulled him over for no legal reason.

Opinion.

 

[churchmouse]

Two points.....
1; CM is/was a damn hippie
2; The curb stomp boggie is a far cry from the .40 caliber dirt-nap.

Had I done what that young man did I am sure it could have went that way.
Not condoning. I am just saying right or wrong on the stop......just do as you are asked and take actions appropriate when you can with out risk.
That is all I am saying.


And yes, I may or may not have been a Hippie.

 

[churchmouse]

I was taught, no matter how right you are, argue your case in court. On the side of the road, possibly with no witnesses... no.

Like I said.....once free seek the proper course of action.

 

[churchmouse]

I am all for complying and being polite to any law enforcement. Makes it easier for both sides.

Exactly.......Once things have been ironed out then you can seek satisfaction.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Yep. If only cops just left everyone alone. People would stop getting killed by cops, and cops would quit getting killed by trash.

I'm going to propose a strict no public contact policy at my department. We will stop any and all contact with the public.

I'll let you know how that works out.

This is actually a very good idea. Police should concern themselves with criminals and the enforcement of criminal law and leave the nanny-state enforcement such as high beam traffic violations to social workers. If it ain't criminal, you shouldn't have to deal with it.

 

[BADWOLF]

OK I'LL ASK AGAIN EXCEPT A LITTLE LOUDER

Will someone please point out to me because im just not seeing or getting where the ( disparity of force ) claim could be made by the officer and how he properly executed ( escalation of force )?

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
These are law enforcement concepts right?

 

[Denny347]

OK I'LL ASK AGAIN EXCEPT A LITTLE LOUDER

Will someone please point out to me because im just not seeing or getting where the ( disparity of force ) claim could be made by the officer and how he properly executed ( escalation of force )?

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
These are law enforcement concepts right?

The kid was beating the crap out of him. That is enough. I do not have access to the details, no one here or in the media does.

 

[churchmouse]

OK I'LL ASK AGAIN EXCEPT A LITTLE LOUDER

Will someone please point out to me because im just not seeing or getting where the ( disparity of force ) claim could be made by the officer and how he properly executed ( escalation of force )?

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
These are law enforcement concepts right?

What is your point...???

 

[actaeon277]

This is actually a very good idea. Police should concern themselves with criminals and the enforcement of criminal law and leave the nanny-state enforcement such as high beam traffic violations to social workers. If it ain't criminal, you shouldn't have to deal with it.

Then people should stop asking for them "nanny state" regulations.

 

[Goodcat]

No, it didn't have to end this way, but it did. Being that it did, up for discussion is whether or not the cop mad a LEGAL move. Was it bad? Maybe. Could have done something else? Maybe. But the same applies to every citizen defending themselves. In that split second, the cop could not stop to think about how he should assume fighting back would play out. He was attacked off guard, in the face. In the split second, he feared for his life and took action. Could he have been less aggressive? Yes. Should he have been less aggressive? Yes. Did he need to be less aggressive, no. He defending himself and made a good shoot. Sad for all party's.

 

[BADWOLF]

What is your point...???

I'm looking for someone knowledgeable on these concepts and procedure's to explain how they played out in this incident... Because I'm not seeing how they came into play from my limited knowledge and research of the 2 concepts. 1 being "disparity of force" where the use of a force multiplier is necessary and 2 the idea of "escalation of force" and how its applied. When you have a fully armed and trained law enforcement officer vs. an unarmed teen.... 1 on 1?

 

[BADWOLF]

What is your point...???

And its not a point....... I was asking legitimate questions because I'm not sure from my reading how these concepts are used and played out..... Sorry for asking questions if I don't understand something next time I'll remind myself to just shut up..... And come to my own conclusion when theirs something I don't understand.....

 

[churchmouse]

And its not a point....... I was asking legitimate questions because I'm not sure from my reading how these concepts are used and played out..... Sorry for asking questions if I don't understand something next time I'll remind myself to just shut up..... And come to my own conclusion when theirs something I don't understand.....

Well, I asked you a question. Same thing.
If I hurt your feelings it was not my intent.
Take a breath and look into some of what has been written.
Looks to me like LEO (for right or wrong) was getting his but handed to him.
Also looked like the young man was a douche. JMHO from what I can see.

As I stated up thread just comply and seek satisfaction when the air clears through the proper channels.
Do not punch out LEO....just will not end well.

Again, easy trigger.

 

[foszoe]

And its not a point....... I was asking legitimate questions because I'm not sure from my reading how these concepts are used and played out..... Sorry for asking questions if I don't understand something next time I'll remind myself to just shut up..... And come to my own conclusion when theirs something I don't understand.....

It's the weekend, it's slows down here.

Give it a couple of days to get answered.

 

[Goodcat]

I'm looking for someone knowledgeable on these concepts and procedure's to explain how they played out in this incident... Because I'm not seeing how they came into play from my limited knowledge and research of the 2 concepts. 1 being "disparity of force" where the use of a force multiplier is necessary and 2 the idea of "escalation of force" and how its applied. When you have a fully armed and trained law enforcement officer vs. an unarmed teen.... 1 on 1?

This would be irrelevant, I think, because the cop did not know the teen was not punching him in the face to distract him while he pulled out a weapon or take his pistol and the cop did not know if the teen had been studying ninjutsu his entire life and was hell bent on killing cops. You punch someone in the face who you know has a gun, you may get shot. If the kid was acting aggressively at a distance, it may be different. The altercation took 3 seconds.

 

[phylodog]

I'm looking for someone knowledgeable on these concepts and procedure's to explain how they played out in this incident... Because I'm not seeing how they came into play from my limited knowledge and research of the 2 concepts. 1 being "disparity of force" where the use of a force multiplier is necessary and 2 the idea of "escalation of force" and how its applied. When you have a fully armed and trained law enforcement officer vs. an unarmed teen.... 1 on 1?

I'm not positive that I understand your questions as the phrases you use aren't commonly brought into a conversation on police use of force but I'll give it a shot.

As far as disparity of force and using a force multiplier being necessary - Necessity doesn't come in to play. What does come in to play is was it a reasonable use of force. If you're referring to an officer using a handgun against an unarmed person there is no absolute allowance or prohibition on it. Here is what the law says:

(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.

Indiana Code 35-31.5-2-292 defines serious bodily injury as bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious permanent disfigurement, unconsciousness or extreme pain (among others that I don't feel like typing).

Each and every case of deadly force is judged separately. In this case and based on the photo of the officer after the incident I don't believe it would be difficult to believe that the officer felt extreme pain and/or was in fear of losing consciousness.

I'm not sure about your escalation of force question. Any use of force by a police officer must be objectively reasonable. There is no list of crimes and an acceptable level of force allowed to arrest for those crimes. A tactic used by some is to say that this young man was killed for flashing his bright lights which is intellectually dishonest. The young man was killed because his actions (apparently) put an officer in the position of believing deadly force was reasonable to defend against an attack. The question is not whether it is lawful to use a firearm against an unarmed person. The question is whether that use of the firearms was objectively reasonable in that particular situation.

I don't know MI law and won't attempt to say whether the traffic stop was lawful. I will say that a traffic stop which results in the use of deadly force has nothing to do with the reason for the stop and everything to do with what took place which created the need for force to be used. The officer may face problems if it is determined that the traffic stop was not lawful but a traffic stop which is later determined to be unlawful is grounds for having any citations or arrests made as a result dismissed and potentially opens the officer up to civil and or criminal liability. An unlawful traffic stop is not reasonable grounds for physically attacking an officer.

 

[CPT Nervous]

This is actually a very good idea. Police should concern themselves with criminals and the enforcement of criminal law and leave the nanny-state enforcement such as high beam traffic violations to social workers. If it ain't criminal, you shouldn't have to deal with it.

The criminals are the public. Also, anyone who assaults and batters a person, whether LEO or not, is a criminal. Why are you defending a criminal?

 

[ljk]

Baltimore is a lot safer now.

 

[BADWOLF]

Thank you PHYLODOG... that was what I was looking for and now I have a better understanding of what the officer was thinking...