Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under the common law, a fugitive from justice is not innocent. He is an excepted class, and not protected as are those who surrender when arrested.
There is no controversy when an officer shoots an unarmed fugitive - even if he is running away.
I REPEAT - once one is a fugitive, they CEASE being innocent.
And all the newscasts and propaganda to the contrary cannot change that fact.
However, certain privileged subgroups have been misled to assume if they're not caught, they're not guilty, so they immediately run away. . . and are shot.
Their bereaved relatives exclaim their sorrow and rankle at the thought that he was actually guilty.
But since he ran away, his guilt or innocence cannot be tried in a court of law.
Read the law. Don't fall for the demagogues who agitate for no cause.
This is a nation of laws, not a nation of insiders, extortionists, slavers, racketeers, loan sharks, and corrupt officials.
Uh, wait, forget that last sentence.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or the public.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or the public.
A known unarmed suspect being allowed to be shot is not the law
But that case was for CIVIL DAMAGES, not a criminal case. (Title 18 is for crimes and criminal procedure. Title 42 is not. Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights)
Prior to 1984, it was common for the police to be authorized to use deadly force on fugitives from justice (or resisting arrest).
... According to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."
. . .
At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon.
. . .
Garner's father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
. . .
In other words, they can't be criminally prosecuted for shooting a fugitive, but they will have to deal with civil penalties for failure to specially treat U.S. citizens residing in their state. Such are the changes due to the State of Emergency, since 1933.
. . .
Ironically, the "seizure" via constitutional warrant has no mention of "resisting arrest" or "becoming a fugitive" to escape justice.
Methinks that the court bent the law (and old common law) to pander to a privileged minority who has since convinced itself that it is above all law.
(FWIW - I have yet to find a Title 42 USC Sec. 1983 case where the plaintiff was melanin deficient and won damages. If you do, please post the citation. Thank you.)
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, VAGABONDS and FUGITIVES from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Last edited by jetgraphics; 12-03-2016 at 01:48 AM..
In order to secure a conviction for resisting arrest, the prosecutor must produce evidence on the following issues, called the “elements” of the offense, and the judge or jury must decide that the prosecutor has proved each one of them beyond a reasonable doubt. While the elements of the crime may vary from state to state, usually all of the following must be true:
● The defendant intentionally resisted or obstructed a law enforcement officer. This means the defendant intentionally acted in a way to hinder the arrest. However, the person need not have intended the result or harm that his actions caused.
● The defendant acted violently toward the law enforcement officer or threatened to act violently. For example, striking or pushing the officer would satisfy this requirement. Similarly, a defendant’s threat to strike an officer with an object in the defendant’s hand would also satisfy this requirement.
● The law enforcement officer was lawfully discharging his official duties. This means the law enforcement officer was properly engaged in the performance of official duties, such as investigating a crime or making a traffic stop. A law enforcement officer can be acting lawfully even when arresting the wrong person and even if the charges are dropped or the defendant secures an acquittal at trial.
Under the common law, a fugitive from justice is not innocent. He is an excepted class, and not protected as are those who surrender when arrested.
There is no controversy when an officer shoots an unarmed fugitive - even if he is running away.
I REPEAT - once one is a fugitive, they CEASE being innocent.
And all the newscasts and propaganda to the contrary cannot change that fact.
However, certain privileged subgroups have been misled to assume if they're not caught, they're not guilty, so they immediately run away. . . and are shot.
Their bereaved relatives exclaim their sorrow and rankle at the thought that he was actually guilty.
But since he ran away, his guilt or innocence cannot be tried in a court of law.
Read the law. Don't fall for the demagogues who agitate for no cause.
This is a nation of laws, not a nation of insiders, extortionists, slavers, racketeers, loan sharks, and corrupt officials.
Uh, wait, forget that last sentence.
That is well and true, but its not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Indeed, its not clear whether South Carolina abides by the traditional common law rule on this issue or whether it has adopted Tennessee vs. Garner for criminal matters. Of course, while Garner was concerned with a civil statute/liability, nothing prevents states from applying that case to criminal matters.
For instance, in Sheppard v. State, 594 S.E.2d 462, 473 (2004), the South Carolina Supreme Court noted that:
Quote:
The trial court also properly charged that an officer may use whatever force is necessary to affect the arrest of a felon including deadly force to affect that arrest. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (during felony arrest, if arresting officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses threat of serious physical harm, officer may prevent escape by using deadly force).
The first sentence seems to suggest that the traditional common law understanding on the use of force allowed to police officers in apprehending a fugitive is in effect. However, the Court then clouds things further by citing to Tennessee vs. Garner, while noting that Garner imposed a stricter standard.
All in all, though, given the confusion over this opinion, I say that some sort of qualified immunity principle should shield the officer in question here (assuming you're referring to the case that I think you are) from a finding of guilt in this case. Some may not like it, but I don't see how a fair application of the law should result in a murder conviction for the officer in the Walter Scott case (he may very well be guilty of other crimes . . . that I do believe).
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 12-03-2016 at 02:23 AM..
If I were a cop, I would not feel obligated to shoot someone who is fleeing. It just puts you at risk of being prosecuted by some liberal prosecutor and found guilty by a liberal jury. I'd prefer to let the criminal flee back into the liberal comminity he came from to victimize liberals.
If I were a cop, I would not feel obligated to shoot someone who is fleeing. It just puts you at risk of being prosecuted by some liberal prosecutor and found guilty by a liberal jury. I'd prefer to let the criminal flee back into the liberal comminity he came from to victimize liberals.
So the assumption is that the criminal is from a liberal community? No criminals are from conservative communities....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
