Incarnate Word Student Killed During Traffic Stop (Vega: attorneys, home)

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

Ok, would a person (considering your expertise handling a baton) be able to sustain multiple strikes to the head with a baton without having any injuries? No blood, no scratches, no bruises. Because that is what the cop in question is claiming.

I would have to read what the cop is claiming. I have not. I will state once again, I dont know what happened. I am jsut trying to explain why cops do what they do sometimes.

For example, could someone get hit in the head with an expandable baton and not bleed? If it was a good strike, I dont think so. Head wounds bleed bad....BUT... If you had the baton in your hand unexpanded and were just punching someone(like the old school holding a roll of quarters in your hand before getting into a fight), which is a move taught in baton class, a punch can hit with a much larger surface area that may not cause bleeding. I would assume there would be a mark if it was a good strike.

I would also like to point out, cops dont fight for points. They dont fight to a draw. If someone is trying to hit you in the head....it doesnt matter if they are landing blows or not. You are in a fight for your life. You dont have to actually get hurt to act.

[pr57001]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

We both know that all cops makes assumptions about everyone they pull over. It is human nature. So when you see a skinny white kid, early 20's, turning into an apartment complex where hundreds of students live, a few blocks away from a university, would you assume that he's a student? You're obviously not thinking, "Wow, I've probably got a big time crack dealer on my hands!" or "This gangbanger must have some guns!"

If you can't even admit to that, then I have seriously overestimated your professional abilities, and perhaps it is time for you to find a new career path.

And no, if you're losing a fight to an unarmed student, that is not a situation to shoot someone. This will be proven soon, and that cop better pray I'm not selected for jury duty.

Your argument makes no sense

1) Because he is a "skinny white, early 20's" college student, he shouldn't be stopped for DUI? WRONG

2) Because he is a "skinny white, early 20's" college student, he can't attack a police officer? WRONG

3) You can't be justified in shooting someone who attacks you with a baton? You can't be justified in shooting someone who attacks you while at gunpoint? WRONG

You make it sound like the cop started shooting at him while they were driving down Broadway on the speculation he was a mass-murdered. That's not what happened by anyone's account.

None of these things make the officer's actions justified, but nothing so far proves the inverse, either, which is what you have to prove.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

No seatbelt an arrestable offense? Silly.

Besides the fact, silly or not, you can go to jail for it...I can give you a number of reasons.

For example:

You get a friendly warning on Monday.

You get a ticket on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

On Friday the Officer is well justified in believing that you are not going to comply with the Law. You get arrested for it. Stuff like this happens sometimes.

There are other reasons as well but they are complicated and I dont feel like typing all day.

[Azure110]

I would say something to add to the discussion above but Neshomamench is always correct, even when he really isn't correct. Why keep arguing with him?

Back to the topic on hand, I read an update on CNN to this particular incident and it looks like the cop had every right to defend himself. The student was told to stop resisting 56 times and all of it was recorded by sound altough the video was not recorded. I still think 4-6 times to shoot was a bit much, but I was not there so I can't really determine how someone can still be a threat even after shot #4 considering he was not armed with a gun.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

We both know that all cops makes assumptions about everyone they pull over. It is human nature. So when you see a skinny white kid, early 20's, turning into an apartment complex where hundreds of students live, a few blocks away from a university, would you assume that he's a student? You're obviously not thinking, "Wow, I've probably got a big time crack dealer on my hands!" or "This gangbanger must have some guns!"

If you can't even admit to that, then I have seriously overestimated your professional abilities, and perhaps it is time for you to find a new career path.

And no, if you're losing a fight to an unarmed student, that is not a situation to shoot someone. The courts have already dealt with this as well. A person is well within their rights to combat deadly force with deadly force, even if the attack is coming from a police officer. If that cop struck him with the baton, then he had every right to fight back. This will all be proven soon, and that cop better pray I'm not selected for jury duty.

I cant admit to that....because it would be a dangerous thing to do. Someone tries to assault me pretty much every week. I cant assume anything. You dont know anything about being a cop. This is cop 101 stuff.

...and yes, if you are losing a fight, you can shoot something. You dont understand the law either. The Officer doesnt have to stop...and can use any force necessary to make the arrest.
The p

Here is the law.

SUBCHAPTER E. LAW ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.
(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.
(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by Subsection (c) or (d).
(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.
(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d)

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by MattTx

I would say something to add to the discussion above but Neshomamench is always correct, even when he really isn't correct. Why keep arguing with him?

Back to the topic on hand, I read an update on CNN to this particular incident and it looks like the cop had every right to defend himself. The student was told to stop resisting 56 times and all of it was recorded by sound altough the video was not recorded. I still think 4-6 times to shoot was a bit much, but I was not there so I can't really determine how someone can still be a threat even after shot #4 considering he was not armed with a gun.

I challenge you to point out where I am factually wrong.

[dastexan]

I think one of the bigger issues raised here is that the cop appears to be overweight and out of shape and thus unable to handle some of the basic duties that could arise in patrol work.

But my assumption is that the unions involved dont really care about this issue and the cities (loose term, also applies to counties, universities et al) dont actually care about this issue either.

I mean in the military which has been discussed and not related doesnt allow their soldiers to get out of shape to where they cannot perform basic fitness tests.

Why is it I see so many fat and out of shape cops around town on patrol? Note: I see this less with SAPD and more with places like schools and the county.

Shouldnt it be a basic requirement to actually be in shape? And while I realize this is a total 180 degree tangent, shouldnt we as a public kind of demand this of our peace officers? I mean we do pay their salaries and all...

It would be one thing if Joe Schmoe in the private sector is fat and out of shape, who cares. The public isnt paying them to be the peace keepers in our society.

Its one thing that bothers me, continues to bother me and will always bother me.


I'd love to hear an explanation for why this is ever allowed?

[zhugeliang1]

Someone tries to assault me pretty much every week

Why would anyone do that to you, Neshomamech?

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

I challenge you to point out where I am factually wrong.

So you are saying you are never factually wrong?

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by MattTx

So you are saying you are never factually wrong?

I said, word for word;

"I challenge you to point out where I am factually wrong"


That is what I am saying. If you can, great. Lets discuss that. Just saying I am wrong doesnt help anyone.