Honestly Lou, ever seen s 'Felony Evader' try to punch through a couple of cars that are blocking them in? Should he have been free to run down LEO's on the scene and elsewhere trying to apprehend him with a 4000# Deadly Weapon? How about Innocent Bystanders that would be unlucky enough to be in his path?

As HayesGreener indicates, he had already committed "an armed crime of violence in the carjacking, then aggravated assault on law enforcement when he rammed their cruisers."

Charged with first-degree manslaughter.

Out on 50K Bond.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
The suspect committed an armed crime of violence in the carjacking, then aggravated assault on law enforcement when he rammed their cruisers. They got him stopped and clearly the officers decided the pursuit was going to end right there, one way or another. Even after being stopped, boxed in, tazed, and held at gunpoint, the suspect threatened officers with a knife, and was still in control of his vehicle. So what do you do, engage in an empty hand fight with a violent felon with a knife? Or just get back in your cruisers and let him go? In my view the decision to charge that trooper is prosecutorial misconduct. They will never get a conviction and they know it, and that makes the charge the folly of an unethical prosecutor.

The crime of violence, the pursuit, and ramming the cruisers- all may EXPLAIN the adrenaline that led to the shooting, but none of that JUSTIFIES the shooting. There were options other than an empty hand fight. Wait him out, smoke him out, call the zoo for a tranquilizer gun. Police officers aren’t justified in shooting suspects because they are not complying. As the facts have been presented, shooting him through a closed window because he presented a knife is NOT a justified shooting.

The facts as presented in the article may be wrong, but that is all we have to go on at this point. If he had been driving toward the officer it would be a different story. But the article says that the chase had ended and his car was boxed in.

I have little sympathy for the scumbag. I am sympathetic to the extreme challenges facing law enforcement officers. But it doesn’t do any good, and can do a lot of harm, if people attempt to justify wrongful behavior because of sympathy.

I hope for the officer’s sake that he is acquitted. But if the facts as presented bear out, he has no business carrying a gun.

I will have to respectfully disagree in part. I agree that there may have been another means of bringing the suspect under control, or perhaps not, and I am sure the officers at the scene wish they had had other non-lethal measures at hand. But, you have to take the totality of circumstances into consideration in the context of the statute, not just a snapshot of a moment of the event. The fact is, the suspect refused to surrender. We can argue all day long that they should have had less lethal alternatives, but my objection is that they chose to prosecute the trooper.

Here is the salient language from the Connecticut statute governing the police use of force for consideration:

"C.G.S. § 53a-22(c) states that a peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or authorized official of the Department of Correction or the Board of Pardons and Paroles is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person when he/she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:

Defend himself/herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force, OR
Effect an arrest [or prevent the escape from custody] of a person whom he/she reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony which involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury, OR

Prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he/she reasonably believes has committed a felony which involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and if, where feasible under this subdivision, he/she has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force."

They will never get a conviction

^^^
I agree that on paper it would never happen. I was extremely disappointed with the Chauvin ruling as the elements for each individual charged crime were not met. I was pleased that Rittenhouse was able to avoid the same hysterics that demanded Chauvin be a sacrificial goat. Let’s hope the same level of courtroom dishonesty doesn’t make this trooper a victim.

All the deceased subject needed to do was stop, drop the knife, and step out of the car with his hands up. Police surrounding a suspect in a vehicle that can strike them, and refusing to comply with orders, escalates things to this level. HonestLou most police departments don’t have a hotline to the zoo for a tranquilizer gun.

Gut reaction - if the criminal is holding a knife and not complying to orders, take him down. His mindset will be to hurt / kill if given the opportunity. LE should wait for him to get out of the car w/ the knife before deciding next steps? Why? I don't think so.

I don't think so. If he's non-compliant and dangerous, no holds barred. Take him down. This isn't some game. It's not even playing chicken. Screw that - if you're dangerous and no signs of complying, you get put down. No games. Especially for repeat offenders. They've had their chances.

Crime is rampant. No games. You play, you play all-in, you play all the way.

It’s a shame the guy got shot. All it would have taken to prevent that unfortunate result would have dropping the knife and complying. On the positive side, dude doesn’t have any more problems.

These things are resolved in split seconds or go real bad in split seconds. Cops on the scene don’t have the benefit of a “pause” button to put it all on hold and pow wow over options like the Monday morning QB’s.

The criminal decided his fate. Had there been hesitation or “hoping” he would comply it could have possibly led to an “out” that ended up with an innocent being killed.

He may not have “deserved” what he got, but it seems he was a certainly legally entitled to his fate.


I am assuming there was a departmental investigation of the shooting? If Trooper was cleared in that I hope he goes after the overzealous prosecutor once he is cleared of the criminal charges.

Absolute pandering and virtue signaling on the part of the prosecutor, he should be ashamed. Maybe it is time to quit and become a defender if that is his preference for clientele.

Connecticut faces a quandary. The state police have 1,201 allocated positions — but 236 are not funded. State troopers have retired at a rate of 60 to 80 per year, creating a staffing shortage that could lead to only 800 sworn personnel by 2023. That’s when 55 percent of the force would be eligible to retire if no one else is hired. The first Academy class this year had 100 openings & they could only fill 56..

Wondering, how many people who think the shooting was wrong actually watched the body cam and dash cam videos at all the different angles?

Does seeing the video change your mind?

Did you actually know what was going on at the passenger door side?

From the passenger door side, did you notice what he was doing when he was shot?

Did you notice the one cop change from firearm to Taser in an unsuccessful attempt to take him alive?

Did you notice the perp not giving any indication of compliance?

Did you see that a guy possibly getting out of the passenger door with a knife could pose a further problem to the 2 cops nearby?
What about if he hit reverse and swung the steering wheel to the left -- what would have happened to those 3 cops at passenger side?

Or, did you not watch the video, but formed an opinion anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Wondering, how many people who think the shooting was wrong actually watched the body cam and dash cam videos at all the different angles?

Does seeing the video change your mind?

Did you actually know what was going on at the passenger door side?

From the passenger door side, did you notice what he was doing when he was shot?

Did you notice the one cop change from firearm to Taser in an unsuccessful attempt to take him alive?

Did you notice the perp not giving any indication of compliance?

Did you see that a guy possibly getting out of the passenger door with a knife could pose a further problem to the 2 cops nearby?
What about if he hit reverse and swung the steering wheel to the left -- what would have happened to those 3 cops at passenger side?

Or, did you not watch the video, but formed an opinion anyway?

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8QeC4bIh634" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

I had NOT watched the videos previously, but had only read the article, so thanks for the link. Watching the videos did NOT change my opinion, but reinforced it. I was somewhat concerned that the image posted in the article could have been misleading. It was not.

After watching the videos available, this still image accurately portrays the moment of the shooting. When the trooper opened fire through a closed window because the guy showed a knife:

Umm, context matters. You can’t take that one snippet and choose to ignore the rest of the event.

That moment was the culmination of everything leading up to it you can’t separate it out and pass judgment.

There is a reason the court has witnesses swear to tell ”The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth”

Dude had the opportunity to choose many options that would lead to life.

He kept choosing the wrong ones until he ran the fuck out of options.

Had he simply, and I mean simply, dropped the knife and raised his hands. he would most likely still be alive.

He chose his fate.

He pressed it to the edge.

He Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid'ed hisslef to death.

He walked off the face of the earth by his own accord.

I pay taxes for LE to do this, because the government won't let me and other citizens put a bullet in the brainpans of despicable self centered sociopath's such as this guy.

How many innocent people this guy nearly killed, and yet some want to give the guy a hug, and see if that solves all his problems...

Bye.
Be gone.

"That's right, Mubarak - You lost. And let me tell you what you didn't win: a twenty volume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. But that's not all. You also made yourself look like a jerk in front of millions of people. You brought shame and disgrace to your family name for generations to come. You don't get to come back tomorrow. You don't even get a lousy copy of our home game. You're a complete loser!"

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
It’s a shame the guy got shot. All it would have taken to prevent that unfortunate result would have dropping the knife and complying. On the positive side, dude doesn’t have any more problems.

Maybe, just maybe if Mubarak wasn't a criminal piece of shit, out car jacking people, none of this would have happened at all...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

"That's right, Mubarak - You lost. And let me tell you what you didn't win: a twenty volume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. But that's not all. You also made yourself look like a jerk in front of millions of people. You brought shame and disgrace to your family name for generations to come. You don't get to come back tomorrow. You don't even get a lousy copy of our home game. You're a complete loser!"

You win bonus internets for the Weird Al reference...

I toss a little bait in now and again to see if anyone actually reads my posts...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:


I toss a little bait in now and again to see if anyone actually reads my posts...

I read them, but I don't always understand them. (Weird Al?)

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by honestlou:
…I have little sympathy for the scumbag. I am sympathetic to the extreme challenges facing law enforcement officers. But it doesn’t do any good, and can do a lot of harm, if people attempt to justify wrongful behavior because of sympathy.

I hope for the officer’s sake that he is acquitted. But if the facts as presented bear out, he has no business carrying a gun…”

… We can argue all day long that they should have had less lethal alternatives, but my objection is that they chose to prosecute the trooper.

Here is the salient language from the Connecticut statute governing the police use of force for consideration:

"C.G.S. § 53a-22(c) states that a peace officer … is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person when he/she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:

…
Effect an arrest [or prevent the escape from custody] of a person whom he/she reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony which involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury …"

They will never get a conviction

Thanks for posting that. I have to agree with you that he should not be convicted. That statute gives great protection to LEOs for the use of deadly force, and the second section in particular (I omitted the first and third for clarity) covers the situation at hand.

But I will still (stubbornly) maintain that the shooting wasn’t justified. It was justified in law by the statute, but not justified in fact. The fact that the deceased was the primary cause of his own death by his actions and poor choices doesn’t change the fact that at the time of the shooting it just wasn’t necessary. Shooting a guy who is seated in a car through the door glass because he presented a knife just doesn’t sit right with me. If he had been lunging at the officers with the knife, or had presented a gun, or had put the car in gear and tried to run them down, I certainly would feel differently.

I always teach with a line that I think was from a John Wayne character… “don’t shoot nobody that don’t need shooting”. At that moment in time, he didn’t need to be shot.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:...At that moment in time, he didn’t need to be shot....

You absolutely, cannot know that. You were not there, facing him, looking him in the eye.

Unless you have ever been in such a situation (I have) you cannot make that claim.

BTDT, I will defer to the man that has to live with the decision that took a life.

You seem to pass over the many opportunities the man had to prevent his death, at the hands of others.

He forced the situation. He alone will stand before God, the universe, nature, or whatever he believed responsible for his existence, his actions, and his demise.

But he will not be facing the man that had to make the choice that need be made, in the precious few seconds presented him.

Until you have to decide, do not judge those that make such decisions and all that comes from them.

It is all too easy to make a judgement, without the realization of it being seared forever in your waking thoughts, or your every dream.

This is one of those times, I choose to thing, rather than dream.

(dig through the story again. Review everything about it. Then put yourself in the position of every person affected by it, victims, LEO, the person that started it all, those on the freeways that were at risk. Every one. Including the guy that took the shot. Look at it from his POV in that moment. Then ask yourself again, was it a justifiable action or not.)

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:

But I will still (stubbornly) maintain that the shooting wasn’t justified. It was justified in law by the statute, but not justified in fact.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you since 1985. And, there is absolutely no Use of Force legal analysis that doesn't start with objective facts.

"Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

I am not at all familiar with Connecticut law, which may be more restrictive. But that's been the Federal rule for almost 40 years. The facts, as presented, absolutely meet the test. The trooper had PC to believe the suspect committed a crime involving the threatened infliction of deadly force (the armed carjacking), the suspect remained armed, and continued to threaten the officers.

John Wayne was a hell of a guy, but he's not legal precedent.