Kansas Crimson

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:20 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:16 am must stipulate…manslaughter or murder?

legalities are important

if they “feared for their lives”, it won’t be murder

In my opinion, if he didn't shoot at them, then they had no reason to fear for their lives, and it was murder.

well if cops DID fear for their lives, why'd they even bother pursuing him at all?

they coulda instead pulled another Uvalde, and just waited idly while shitting their pants.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:27 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:20 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:16 am must stipulate…manslaughter or murder?

legalities are important

if they “feared for their lives”, it won’t be murder

In my opinion, if he didn't shoot at them, then they had no reason to fear for their lives, and it was murder.

well if cops DID fear for their lives, why'd they even bother pursuing him at all?

they coulda instead pulled another Uvalde, and just waited idly while shitting their pants.

And there we have it. The punch line we've all be waiting for (and expecting).

Good day sir.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:34 am

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:27 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:13 am 6. Not if he shot at the cops.

Any Second Amendment/Stand Your Ground people want to weigh in here? Isn’t the whole premise for private gun ownership (other than hunting and sport) to defend oneself from the government excess? In this case aren’t the police government?

Did the cops shoot at him first? If not, then I think it becomes hard to justify shooting at the cops during a traffic stop.

Why is the burden of proof not on the police? It is in a court of law. So the police can just say, with no proof, that the guy shot at them first and then use it as an excuse to (legally) murder him, bypassing the entire judicial process?

Now the court has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the police acted in bad faith. But they have muddied the water enough that it’s impossible. Heads I win tails you lose situation if I’ve ever seen one.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:32 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:27 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:20 am

In my opinion, if he didn't shoot at them, then they had no reason to fear for their lives, and it was murder.

well if cops DID fear for their lives, why'd they even bother pursuing him at all?

they coulda instead pulled another Uvalde, and just waited idly while shitting their pants.

And there we have it. The punch line we've all be waiting for (and expecting).

Good day sir.

if only cops pursued the Uvalde shooter as doggedly as the pursued this guy for an equipment violation, eh?

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:33 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:34 am

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:27 am

Any Second Amendment/Stand Your Ground people want to weigh in here? Isn’t the whole premise for private gun ownership (other than hunting and sport) to defend oneself from the government excess? In this case aren’t the police government?

Did the cops shoot at him first? If not, then I think it becomes hard to justify shooting at the cops during a traffic stop.

Why is the burden of proof not on the police? It is in a court of law. So the police can just say, with no proof, that the guy shot at them first and then use it as an excuse to (legally) murder him, bypassing the entire judicial process?

Now the court has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the police acted in bad faith. But they have muddied the water enough that it’s impossible. Heads I win tails you lose situation if I’ve ever seen one.

I agree with you 100%.

It should take a lot to get shot by police. Extreme actions.

It should take even more to get shot 50+ times.

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:33 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:34 am

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:27 am

Any Second Amendment/Stand Your Ground people want to weigh in here? Isn’t the whole premise for private gun ownership (other than hunting and sport) to defend oneself from the government excess? In this case aren’t the police government?

Did the cops shoot at him first? If not, then I think it becomes hard to justify shooting at the cops during a traffic stop.

Why is the burden of proof not on the police? It is in a court of law. So the police can just say, with no proof, that the guy shot at them first and then use it as an excuse to (legally) murder him, bypassing the entire judicial process?

Now the court has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the police acted in bad faith. But they have muddied the water enough that it’s impossible. Heads I win tails you lose situation if I’ve ever seen one.

fwiw a traffic cam does show an apparent flash of light coming from the suspect's driver side window. It's purported to be muzzle flash, and is congruent with cops reporting shots fired on the body cam and radio recordings.

I'm curious about what Jayland Walker was up to, and how a traffic stop escalated to a high-speed chase and massive shootout.

Maybe he really was up to no good. The gun and ski mask seem to suggest as much.

But how did a door dash driver with no priors get to that situation in the first place?

and I'm still curious exactly what happened in the initial moments. When cops initially put on the lights to stop him, did he ever stop, or just promptly start running? Was there any exchange between the suspect and the cops prior to the chase?

If there was, and if cops said or did something to escalate a routine traffic stop to a life-or-death chase and shootout, does that even make a difference?

as a matter of policy, is this the best and safest protocol in this sort of situation - for the suspect, for the cops, and for the general public? Specifically, high-speed vehicle pursuits, as well as armed foot pursuits.

(again, it's a wonder the only one shot was the suspect)

this kid gets excessively gunned down, but the chicago murderer is apprehended peacefully

something doesn’t jive

I guess cops are trained to shoot to kill, not simply injure.

but, where is that lawn drawn between "shoot to kill" and "excessive force?"

(I recall one instance of police brutality a few years back in Chicago, during which a single cop emptied his entire clip, hitting a black kid like 16 times, even after he was motionless on the ground. The preliminary police report - you guessed it! - cleared any police wrongdoing, saying the shooting was justifiable on the claim the kid lunged at cops with the knife...but as more evidence was released, it showed the kid was actually walking away when the cop decided to unload on him anyway. In that rare instance, the cop actually got in trouble...oh, and RIP Laquan McDonald)

if I'm a lawyer trying to argue excessive force in this case, I think I'd work with the video evidence and with ballistics to count the number of bullets fired at Walker by the time/after he's already laying motionless on the ground, by the time/after the one cop is already waving the other cops off, etc.

cuz the shots fired after those occurrences still numbers in the dozens.

I also might try to argue that cops should reasonably perceive the suspect is no longer a threat at some point during the lengthy duration of gunfire, which makes the subsequent...oh, I dunno, 89 or so shots?...excessive and unreasonable.

and also count the number of bullets that were fired into his back, cuz I'm pretty sure ballistics will indicate plenty of those too.

I might even try to argue cops were being reckless, as some cops opened fire so quickly that other cops had to jump out of the line of fire, cops standing directly down range from other cops firing, etc., but I'm pretty sure that's even trickier to argue

...not that any of this matters.

You should have been an attorney instead of a hotel front desk boy.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:30 pm You should have been an attorney instead of a hotel front desk boy.

#copbasher

https://news.yahoo.com/former-police-ch ... 44058.html

Disclaimer - I am PRO police. I am ANTI police using unnecessary force.
I'll leave it up to others do decide what is necessary and unnecessary force in regards to this video.
Does WHO is/are in the video matter as much as WHAT is happening in the video?

https://www.newsweek.com/jacob-blake-fa ... ck-1722468

Welp, the extended Uvalde vids only make it worse

Here or the pro-life thread?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:20 am

Sad and scary.

But whatever it takes to save kids lives.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:18 pm
Sad and scary.

But whatever it takes to save kids lives.

Sad and scary is correct, but not for the reason you think.

It’s sad and scary that those in power are too cowardly to enact an assault weapons ban along with a ban on high capacity magazines.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:49 pm It’s sad and scary that those in power are too cowardly to enact an assault weapons ban along with a ban on high capacity magazines.

They should do that too.


....but may still need these pods. Sadly.