Has BLM gone too far?

Where does it say anything about the back?

The correct number.

It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.

I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.

Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".

If that same standard were applied GENERALLY, nobody could ever be charged for a speeding ticket if "they didn't see the sign".

It rewards incompetence (specifically ignorance).  If you didn't know it was illegal, then you can't be charged.  Imagine what a utopia that would be.

I thought it was perfectly legal to shoot a woman through a locked living-room window, while she was sitting in her own home, playing video games with her family.

CIVIL RIGHTS YOU SAY??

The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.

Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.

Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.

Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.

It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.

This could be applied to any case lol.

I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.

It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.

Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".

Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.

It's called supply and demand.

Perhaps we should privatize them.

And it does.

Law is codified mob rule.

Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.

The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.

Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.

I never said they could.

They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier.

Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.

Crime going up in NYC after police defunding

https://nypost.com/2020/06/19/nyc-shootings-surge-after-nypds-anti-crime-unit-disbanded/amp/

And it does.

So what’s your point? Judges and the community can be swayed by anything if it’s persuadable.

Law is codified mob rule.

So you’re an anarchist? Makes sense lol

You just proved my point. Qualified immunity isn’t absolute immunity. If you want to bring a case you Can but it’s your job to convince the jury that you yourself wouldn’t have done what that cop did if you were the cop in the scenario.

Being a cop is hard dude.

Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect".  Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.

Are you switching between police and soldiers now?

Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks half-turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe, who then shot Brooks twice from behind while a third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.

In the EOF handbook, it's called "proportional force". You can't kill someone (by shooting them in the back while they're fleeing) who fires a (non lethal) taser at you.

Members of the NYPD’s anti-crime unit were reassigned to uniformed patrol duties on Monday — part of what Police Commissioner Dermot Shea called a “seismic” shift affecting some 600 cops.

Judges are not objective arbitrators.

I'm stating a fact.

American law is based on a collection of British Common Laws which were created as regional community standards.

Laws change as community standards change.

That's why we no longer follow Jim Crow.

JUSTICE =/= "I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING"

So is being a soldier.

Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect".  Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.

That’s defense isn’t going to work on George Floyd killer because it’s not absolute immunity.

Are you switching between police and soldiers now?

Rules of Engagement in a foreign nation are different depending on the nation. Domestically opinions of other nations don’t matter.

Thanks for proving my point. Under Georgia state law a taser is classified as a deadly weapon. The officer had every right to shoot after he fired that weapon because it’s a split second decision.

We shouldn't have to rely in the press and community outrage in order to hold police responsible for their errors in judgement.

What you seem to be missing is that most cases are NOT broadcast on international news.

And in these cases, the police are overwhelmingly awarded Qualified Immunity.

Can we at least agree that CIVIL RIGHTS should give domestic citizens MORE protection than foreigners in an active WARZONE?

Isn't this just "common sense"?

Still the cops didn’t shoot him until after he turned and shot the taser.

In a famous "fleeing felon case" of Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless 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. 

NOT TO MENTION, the taser only had one cartridge, so after it was fired and missed, there was zero threat and therefore no longer a "deadly weapon" by any standard.

Then the prosecutor is at fault for not even bringing the case forward. Just because it’s not popularized doesn’t mean a cop can’t be convicted.

AT WHICH POINT THE TASER WAS JUST A USELESS LUMP OF PLASTIC.

Judges and juries almost always give police the benefit of the doubt.

Him actively firing the taser was the threat. If the dude only had a single bullet in his gun he still would’ve been shot lol. The ammo is irrelevant to fact that Brooks shot a deadly weapon at a cop and injured the cops beforehand.

It was an escalation of force and an active attack on the cops. What the cops did was an act of self-defense.

Him actively firing the taser was the threat.

They should because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

What the cops did was an act of self-defense.