someone should create an anti gun policing force that gets rented by cities/states

Awww I rendered you speechless. That's sweet.

 

The incessant whining of made up s.h.i,t just gets...tiring.

 

This has nothing to do with Trump. Read for comprehension--I'm talking about the OP.

 

Read between the lines.....you can’t call a poster an ignoramus. But you can call Trump one.

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/160/408/

Compare the above which is where we stopped using the guilty flee where no man pursues nationwide (scotus case dealing with it) but allowed that it was suspicious and at least something that merited investigation, to the below which is a decision from 2000 where they announce that TODAY (ie in 2000) they will [continue to] refuse to endorse a per se rule that flight is suspicious. It CAN be, but requires extra facts to get there than "ran when sighted police".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1036.ZX.html

See how things progress and change?


You can also read the discussion of the rule that is rejected in Tennesse v Garner and be sure to read the footnotes discussion as well https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/#F11

Killing a fleeing felon who was evading capture or attempting to, whether they attacked you or not, used to be copacetic.

"
It is insisted that the Fourth Amendment must be construed in light of the common law rule, which allowed the use of whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon, though not a misdemeanant. As stated in Hale's posthumously published Pleas of the Crown:

"f persons that are pursued by these officers for felony or the just suspicion thereof . . . shall not yield themselves to these officers, but shall either resist or fly before they are apprehended or being apprehended shall rescue themselves and resist or fly, so that they cannot be otherwise apprehended, and are upon necessity slain therein, because they cannot be otherwise taken, it is no felony."

2 M. Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 85 (1736). See also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *289. Most American jurisdictions also imposed a flat prohibition against the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing misdemeanant, coupled with a general privilege to use such force to stop a fleeing felon. E.g., Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C. 185, 136 S.E. 375 (1927); State v. Smith, 127 Iowa 534, 535, 103 N.W. 944, 945 (1905); Reneau v. State, 70 Tenn. 720 (1879); Brooks v. Commonwealth, 61 Pa. 352 (1869); Roberts v. State, 14 Mo. 138 (1851); see generally R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 1098-1102 (3d ed.1982); Day, Shooting the Fleeing Felon: State of the Law, 14 Crim.L.Bull. 285, 286-287 (197; Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich.L.Rev. 798, 807-816 (1924). But see Storey v. State, 71 Ala. 329 (1882); State v. Bryant, 65 N.C. 327, 328 (1871); Caldwell v. State,41 Tex. 86 (1874)."

^ Notice all the US state cases cited there?



Now: Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done

 

You could have saved all that unnecessary copy/paste and actually read my post for understanding. You still don’t get it.

 

And what don't I understand ?

^ As you can see, I simply stated what the FORMER RULE was and how it was ruled unconstitutional. To which your reaction was... amusing and disproportionate also indicating some confusion in understanding.



This little back and forth started with me making a factual statement: It used to be copacetic to simply shoot a fleeing felon, whether or not they presented an ongoing imminent threat to officers or the public (generally while fleeing armed). This is different from the rule today which requires the ongoing imminent threat.

How do I know this? Lawyer, its also general knowledge if you know your history.

You're the one that couldn't accept that that used to be the rule, and have variously accused me of lying or going to an HBCU Law School which is naught but a mouthpiece for Trump.... even though I started law school and took Criminal law (where you learn this) before he was even a candidate....

We could have saved all that unnecessary exhibition of your lack of skill in rhetoric and your complete inaccuracy as to the historical bent of the common law by you simply saying "thanks for the historical tidbit Reality, I'll take your word on it since you're the attorney and I'm not. I won't call you a liar or a puppet of the president or otherwise flamebait you for pointing out simple historical facts forcing you to brow beat me with the truth in front of God and everyone, embarrassing me."

 

Just about everything in law enforcement. Law enforcement was NEVER trained to assume the guilt of anyone that required execution with no mitigating circumstances, . Just fleeing a scene justifying shooting the fleeing suspect is asinine. Fleeing a scene requires chase, no more, no less and each increasing incident during the chase is evaluated as it occurs.

Can it be part of evidence in trial, of course, every thing related to the matter is. Just the idea that you put all of the 40k police departments in the same common circumstance, is ridiculous.

 

And you are demonstrating fanatical obsessiveness with absolutely everything he does, says, or otherwise thinks, pouring over them in order to find any microscopic fault to criticize, when instead he should be ignored and forgotten about.

 

See above, you're wrong. They were in fact once allowed to shoot a fleeing person accused of a felony if they were escaping.
Not a person accused of a misdemeanor, but a felony. Note that being a threat is sufficient to catch death but not required: Simple imminent escape as an accused felon is what is required.

 

Changing the narrative aren’t you ? Now it’s someone in custody, accused of a felony, because, that’s the only way he can be accused. You’re a beauty. Now, that’s your example ? Next, you’ll have someone strapped to the E chair who manages to break free. You’re all over the place. My narrative hasn’t changed one bit. For decades, without mitigating circumstances, which you really don’t seem to know what that means, police are trained to NOT shoot fleeing SUSPECTS, ( not accused) not captives as you change to now. And then, only if they are a demonstrated threat to the public. That’s been the universal training for at least three decades....
Obviously, if they put the lives of the officers in danger then flee, they have demonstrated a threat to the public.
Really, I hope the heck you don’t claim to be a real lawyer.....please. Now make up a new cya, example.

 

No they do not have to be in custody, explicitly. They can be in custody and abscond, that's good. They can be encountered as a person accused of a felony and resist arrest or flee as in: "That black man raped me/robbed me/attacked me officer!!!!" "You there halt!!" *flees* or *resists arrests* = fair game.

You've really got to try reading. I'm not changing the narrative. Here I'll bold and underline things for you this time to help you out

 

First, custody to answer a formal charge does not always mean the suspect is under arrest.

Secondly, That’s the most poorly informed , not only racially bias, but totally inaccurate example of a formal accusal that could lead being in jeopardy of being shot while fleeing. . A witness doesn’t make a formal accusal with that bigoted statement.
He/she must give a signed written statement under oath with the advice of council which could lead to arrest. You really don’t know the difference between detaining someone and arresting them. Regardless of what a person yells, without a formal accusation, the police will first try to detain the informally accused . If he then flees, he’s fleeing as flight from an officer trying to do his duty. That is arrest-able but.....You don’t shoot people for that. ,

I hope you’re not a lawyer. No, you can’t shoot someone fleeing from you because someone yells, THAT TRUMP SUPPORTER ROBBED ME.

Bigoted and crass .

 

Again it's not limited to being in custody to answer a formal charge.
Read the ****ing rule for gods sake man.

I inserted what would've been the most commonly known historic example of killing a fleeing felon for no reason other than you could not otherwise apprehend them which as stated perhaps 5 or 6 times now is not the current rule: in the south during reconstruction there are numerous and sundry legal examples of police corruption and systemic racism equating to black men being considered essentially guilty on accusation, being accused for numerous and sundry reasons real or false, and the classic excuse being "fled while being arrested" when they were in fact simply shot out of hand. One of the main reasons the rule was changed to a strict standard of continuing imminent threat. Hence why now its "shot while resisting arrest" and they bring a throwdown pistol, which were much more likely to catch with today's investigative tools.

Seriously dude, if you cant have an adult discussion about historic fact, and former vs current legal standards without clutching at your pearls so, I wish you would refrain from speaking to me.

Additionally: I didnt say you could now, which a plain reading of my post would indicate. I said in the past a fleeing felon (or person suspected of such) armed or not, could be shot if they were escaping under the common law rule which held for quite some time in US history as the Supreme Court outlined for you in Tennessee v Garner, which I helpfully highlighted so you could understand it and attach again below.

 

How can you have an adult discussion when you make s.h.i.t. Up when cornered. Like I said, you’re all over the map and your bigoted example simply means you have an agenda that’s deeper then I care to debate with. Moving on.
I can’t be bothered with someone who gets his ideas from Dirty Harry movies and Faux.

 

Again you accuse me of being a liar when I'm quoting SCOTUS on the literal legal history of the nation.

Bigoted example? Are you claiming that historically speaking false accusations against black men in the south during reconstruction were not a thing? That seems foolishly naive.

 

My original statement and everything I’ve said is true. For decades, police have routinely been trained to only shoot fleeing subjects when endangered to themselves or the public. You need to get a grip on reality.

You obviously have to go back to the 1800s to find justifications when subjects were shot when fleeing to justify your statement. It’s beginning to be laughable. I expect you’ll be going back millions of years eventually. Your hoary past is over a hundred years in discussion. You seem to have problems telling time. Decades is multiples of ten, centuries is multiples of hundreds.

 

And my original statement and everything I've said is true. For centuries before the US was formed, and for a good century and more after law enforcement shooting someone suspected of a felony crime who fled was perfectly legal.


I didn't justify it presently, I never once said it was currently legal, I made pains to point out it was found to be unconstitutional. Something that would be clear if you'd read my posts.
You've done nothing but flamebait and accuse me of lying multiple times.

 

I'd love to make the money on that, and would name them the New Hessians. And they wouldn't march for cheap.

 

Your generalizations are still false.Presently is not a decades, up to forty years ago.

Not for decades !,!! You say nothing about the suspected presence of firearms or the actions of the fleeing subject. Your statement is FALSE.
PRESENTLY IS NOT DECADES AGO !
It hasn’t been legal for DECADES. DO YOU GET THAT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME. You also don’t seem to under stand “mitigating circumstances.” Your focus on the 1800s and not allowing for the actions of the subject, nor even the presence of a firearm, makes you all over the map in trying to say that routinely shooting fleeing subjects because it’s an admission of guilt is practiced. Rather then just copy paste something you know little about, read the statements more accurately.

Lastly, the single biggest factor in police training in this area, is the prevalence of FIREARMS and especially those more dangerous to the police and public. Lax gun laws breeds more gun violence....which includes, police shootings.

 

First, actually go about demonstrating that such is indeed fact, rather than nothing more than the assumption of yourself.

Second, demonstrate which firearms are supposedly more dangerous to law enforcement officers and the public as opposed to other firearms.

 

Again I never claimed it was a present rule. I always held it out as a FORMER rule which had been held unconstitutional. Nor have I called for its revival or called it a good rule.
I never claimed it was currently routine, but as the SCOTUS outlined for you it was a common practice FORMERLY.

I think you need to try taking a deep breath and actually reading someone's post instead of just spewing diarrhea of the mouth

 

No and no.

 

recently is 100 years then.

 

A former rule between 100 and 200 years ago. Now, was it the same in all state training for law enforcement ?