Officer Shoots Handcuffed Prisoner, Justification That Prisoner is a BODYBUILDER(VID)

[thegodfather]

Guy was out of hand. But damn they said he was tased 4x earlier and didn't respond? He thought he had the upper hand because they couldn't do anything to him.

He was in jail for a reason. Let's not forget that.

I hate it when anyone dies. But for f*cks sake, just do what's right and you'll never end up in this predicament

Ok, that is a ridiculous argument. It actually amazes me that people can in any way, shape, or form defend the actions of the law enforcement officer. This is a common misconception in America, that because he was 'arrested' or in 'jail' then he MUST have done something wrong, he MUST deserve it. Let me remind you people, that being 'ARRESTED' is only an ACCUSATION, it is not ANY INDICATION OF GUILT! He was not in prison, he was not convicted, he was innocent, because he was never proven guilty. There are THOUSANDS of people arrested every single year who in fact did absolutely nothing wrong, and are completely innocent. In fact, there are thousands of people a year convicted for crimes of which they are innocent, and I'll direct you to 'The Innocence Project' as an example of hundreds of people who have been spared death row and life sentences for crimes that they did not commit. Ergo, declaring that he must have 'DESERVED' it because he was in handcuffs, in jail, is ridiculous. Furthermore, thousands of people who are arrested or go to jail resist arrest and become combative, not the least of which is mentally ill people (who are many times more likely to have deadly force used against them, than their sane counterparts).

The only time a law enforcement officer is permitted to use deadly force is in defense of his life or the lives of others. A person must pose a CLEAR threat to life, and the officer must reasonably believe that he or a 3rd party is likely to suffer death or grievous bodily injury at the time deadly force is used. Grievous bodily injury is not a black eye or a bruise, it is an injury which could lead to death, disfigurement, or permanent disability. It is nearly impossible to argue that a suspect/inmate poses such a threat when handcuffed, and when there are dozens of law enforcement personnel in close proximity which could render overwhelming force. Hence why I said there were numerous violations of protocol. Jails have 'Restraint Chairs,' which is precisely the tool that should have been implemented for this individual when he was less combative (there is 43 minutes of video related to this case which demonstrate as much). That the two officers chose to drag this individual out back, and then not to attempt to use a restraint chair, or to call for backup to use overwhelming force on this 'dangerous bodybuilder, is inept. That the officer had a firearm INSIDE a jail facility, is a major violation of protocol, in any American jail that I'm familiar with; I cannot name one facility which allows anyone to carry a firearm inside the jail premises, other than guards on the exterior of the jail, or guard within a control pod/shooting perch within a PRISON.

[thisAngelBites]

Ok, that is a ridiculous argument. It actually amazes me that people can in any way, shape, or form defend the actions of the law enforcement officer. This is a common misconception in America, that because he was 'arrested' or in 'jail' then he MUST have done something wrong, he MUST deserve it. Let me remind you people, that being 'ARRESTED' is only an ACCUSATION, it is not ANY INDICATION OF GUILT! He was not in prison, he was not convicted, he was innocent, because he was never proven guilty. There are THOUSANDS of people arrested every single year who in fact did absolutely nothing wrong, and are completely innocent. In fact, there are thousands of people a year convicted for crimes of which they are innocent, and I'll direct you to 'The Innocence Project' as an example of hundreds of people who have been spared death row and life sentences for crimes that they did not commit. Ergo, declaring that he must have 'DESERVED' it because he was in handcuffs, in jail, is ridiculous. Furthermore, thousands of people who are arrested or go to jail resist arrest and become combative, not the least of which is mentally ill people (who are many times more likely to have deadly force used against them, than their sane counterparts).

The only time a law enforcement officer is permitted to use deadly force is in defense of his life or the lives of others. A person must pose a CLEAR threat to life, and the officer must reasonably believe that he or a 3rd party is likely to suffer death or grievous bodily injury at the time deadly force is used. Grievous bodily injury is not a black eye or a bruise, it is an injury which could lead to death, disfigurement, or permanent disability. It is nearly impossible to argue that a suspect/inmate poses such a threat when handcuffed, and when there are dozens of law enforcement personnel in close proximity which could render overwhelming force. Hence why I said there were numerous violations of protocol. Jails have 'Restraint Chairs,' which is precisely the tool that should have been implemented for this individual when he was less combative (there is 43 minutes of video related to this case which demonstrate as much). That the two officers chose to drag this individual out back, and then not to attempt to use a restraint chair, or to call for backup to use overwhelming force on this 'dangerous bodybuilder, is inept. That the officer had a firearm INSIDE a jail facility, is a major violation of protocol, in any American jail that I'm familiar with; I cannot name one facility which allows anyone to carry a firearm inside the jail premises, other than guards on the exterior of the jail, or guard within a control pod/shooting perch within a PRISON.

Thanks for posting this. I didn't have the strength to type it, but I'm with you 100%. I can't stand that notion that if the police are even speaking to someone, they must have done something wrong. It's a very naive and idealistic notion of policing that does not stand up to factual analysis.