Ags4DaWin said:
SirLurksALot said:
agsalaska said:
SirLurksALot said:
agsalaska said:
Ok. And il save quoting it, but do you see how unreasonable all of that is when you put it together in real life and how the actions of the police all put together create an unwinnable situation for a guy that did nothing wrong?
Nothing wrong? The way the guy answered the door was absolutely wrong. It stupid to answer the door like that if you don't know who is outside. Even you suspect bad actors are outside it's still dumb to put yourself at a disadvantage like that.
He didn't ask who was there. He didn't ask for identification. He created the problem with his actions. The cops actions up to that point were absolutely normal.
From the perspective of the officer that shot I don't believe his actions were unreasonable.
You just made my point. If only identifying yourself one time, hiding so they cant see who you are, and blinding them with a flashlight is perfectly normal, then it shouldn't be.
Sure, i woukdnt have done what the guy did either. But dont pretend the cops did not create the situation to begin with.
How many times are cops expected to announce themselves in 10 seconds?
Why is it unreasonable for cops to protect themselves by not standing in the doorway? They have to identify themselves to give the person they are interacting with a chance to comply. Its part of the job. This is not a scenario that normally happens. Requiring cops to stand in the door way isn't going to save lives as most reasonable people aren't going to act like the subject did. This is dumb. 11 o'clock at night. maybe he has had people trying to break into his house? Maybe the neighbor that called made a fake call and they have been fighting and the neighbor threatened him? In all of those situations, arming yourself prior to opening the door especially if someone announces they are the cops but you have no visual confirmation because the person is intentionally staying out of sight of the peephole IS reasonable. It could be a trap. The point is that it is THE RESPONSIBILITY of the police to give citizens they encounter a chance to comply. When a police officer fails to adequately identify themselves AND IN FACT ACTS TO PREVENT THE CITIZEN FROM BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEM (via hiding from visual sight, and then blinding them with a flashlight) and then fails to give the citizen a chance to comply, the responsibility for what happens should lie with the police officer.
Why is unreasonable to shine their flash light? As I said earlier, the light on briefly goes into the subjects eyes for a Split second. It doesn't appear they intentionally tired to blind him. bull**** and deep down you know it. that light was intended to blind him. it takes several minutes after a shine like that in the dead of night for your eyes to fully recover. it doesn't matter if the light was shined for a minute or 3 seconds, the victim's vision was impaired.
i get that u support the cops and want to give them the benefit of the doubt. i do to and i am usually the first to look for mitigating circumstances.
at the end of the day there are none here. the cops were wrong from the get go.
From a legal standpoint You're just wrong.
Cops only have to identify themselves in away they could reasonably expect the subject to understand. They did that here. They knocked on the door and loudly announced police. I don't know what else should be expected. They can't know the mindset of the subject or wether he heard their announ
The problem is that you're looking at the situation from the perspective of the subject. When determining if the use of force was justified the only thing that matter is the perspective of the officer who fired. Whether the subjects actions are reasonable or not is irrelevant. The officer can't know the subjects mindset or his motivations.
Wether you like it or not avoiding the fatal funnel is standard police training all over the country. You can't hold the cops Criminally liable for doing what they were trained to do.
You're last point is just ridiculous. What leads you to believe it they intentionally tried to blind him? As soon as the officer recognized the light was in the subjects face he lowered. Assuming it was intentional is just wishful thinking.
I actually don't always support cops. Look at my previous posting history and you'll see I've been quite critical of cops in other situations. In this situation from the officer's perspective I don't know how you can make the determination that his actions were unreasonable. The problem is the general public doesn't have a good understanding of the legal requirements for use of force or how such uses of force are judged.
