tvc184

Correct.

It is evidence in a crime and an investigation. If it was taken as is the claim, it is then in evidence. Whether the store owner can get it back depends on the criminal procedure laws of that state. Evidence seized at a crime scene does not require a warrant in many or even most situations. Had the police seized something like a cell phone to preserve the evidence from being destroyed, they would need a warrant to view the contents but not to grab the phone. Merely seizing things to be searched usually requires no warrant. Just as an example, if the police have probable cause of a felony happening inside of a home and the evidence may be destroyed, they can seize the home by removing the people from inside and keeping people from entering until a warrant can be obtained or refused. That means that with the proper information, the police can keep you out of your own home without a warrant in order to obtain a warrant and keep evidence from being destroyed. There is also the issue of "standing" to complain but that may be for another day. [Hidden Content] Feel free to peruse legal issues on entering even homes (possible our most protected place under the law) without a warrant. Of particular interest may be the sections Is my private property really that private? and Are search warrants required for every search? You might find some interesting tidbits of lawful searches and when a warrant is needed. Of course, that is just going by the law........

About as nervous as you might feel if you felt you might be dead in a few seconds. I never approach anyone without the feeling that this might be "the" encounter. I have been in that encounter a few times and have been treated at the hospital for on duty injuries caused by suspects on at least three occasions that I can remember. Five times I have been involved in shooting incidents either by being fired upon from close range, me firing at a person or having a partner shoot and kill a guy about 10 feet in front of me. Rather than getting used to it, it makes you more wary the older you get.

It is too easy to comply with lawful orders when confrontation is the desire.

I have only said that let the facts come out. I have not said a single time that any of the officers involved were innocent. Your response to the incidents is that the officers are wrong until proven innocent and there is no evidence that can prove that. Now that is sad. You don't want facts, you want rhetoric. Approximately 7% of the country are black males. They have killed police officers an average of 40% of the police officers killed each year according to FBI statistics for 6 years (2008-2013 or the last years available) or at almost 600% more than their population. Care to explain how you complain on the number of blacks killed by the police but are very likely to ignore the reasons such deadly confrontations are happening? How does one group kill at 6 times their population and it is almost completely ignored? Try to spin that as a half full glass. Feel free to show where any of what I said was twisted.

1. The "most" vital organs means what in the scope of things? The chest also has the most places that you can shoot repeatedly without hitting anything vital. There are hundreds of examples of people taking multiple rounds in the chest and living. I had a friend (now deceased) that was an officer that I worked with that shot a guy 6 times with a .45 in the chest at point blank ranges and the guy cut the officer's throat after he was shot. They both survived and the suspect was sentenced to prison. 2. Shooting is to stop aggression or to restrain, according to the circumstances. 3. What does pinned have to do with anything? If he gets a hand free and gets to that gun, he can shoot the officers without even drawing it, especially if it is a revolver where he can likely empty it without ever taking it out of the pocket. I have watched two different videos multiple times and cannot tell what happened or if he was reaching or at least had the potential to reach for a gun. 4. The body cam seems to be the biggest nonsense at all. The news reports say they came off. That is not shocking in the least. They have clips like a cell phone. Go fight with someone and see if a cell phone comes out of its case or the entire case/clip comes off. The police often lose equipment during struggles and about 99% of the time they wish they hadn't. I have lost my baton, gun (twice) and radio just off the top of my head. Also, according to which system is used, the cameras have to be turn on manually. When officers jump out on a man with a gun, I am not so sure that thinking of holding down the "on" button for a few seconds is the most pressing thing on their mind. Where they activated and came off or where they simply not used? I have seen any updates on it but maybe you have more information. You seem to be trying to make the case that lack of body cameras is proof of something. With all the claimed evidence of wrongdoing, why do they even need body cameras in this case? I keep hearing that the two videos made public are enough to show murder. I can envision the officers' conversation now and to do so we need to say that they met up while responding to this hot call or at least contacted each other like by cell phone. If it was ironic as you say, that both did not work, we can only assume it was a conspiracy for your innuendo to be accurate. Here we go.......... Officer 1: Hey, let's not use our cameras! Officer 2. Great idea, what are we going to do? 1. Let's toss them on the ground as we are getting out of our cars and say they were lost in the rush to the suspect. 2. Awesome! Let's even turn them on to make it look like we wanted to use them. 1. Great idea. Hey and while we are at it, let's shoot the guy with a Taser but hope it doesn't work, that way you will have an excuse to tackle him. 2. Oh my gosh, you are on your A game today. Let's finish it off by saying that he was going for a gun.................

Maybe when you say I "agree 100%" with the MN shooting, you need to choose your words more carefully. Of course you did also say "not all the facts were out", I guess meaning that you weren't really 100% sure.... but then... "seems like the cop was the one wrong". Yeah, I then had the audacity to ask you based on what. You know, facts? Like I said, the only fact we knew at the time is that the guy was dead and it was from an officer shooting him. Almost nothing else was known. Now it at least appears that this had nothing to do with a taillight out but rather being a possible suspect in a recent (I believe just happened) armed robbery. I guess that puts me on a high horse for wanting to see what we can prove and you I suppose, needing to choose your words better since it appears what you wrote was not what you meant.

I can show you videos of officers that did exactly that and were killed. I mean going as far as yelling at the soon to be shooter to stop repeatedly, one time as an officer watched the shooters load his gun. There was plenty of reason to fire in self defense and it is sickening and heartbreaking to watch but the officer hesitated not for a couple of seconds but for quite a while. Most officers can lawfully use deadly force more than once in their career but about 98% never do so.

I have not questioned your intelligence. You might have a PhD for all I know and that might get you a job at NASA but it won't stop a fight. "Common sense" does not enter into the equation. I have seen a single officer restrain a person according to the level of resistance. I have also seen it take 4 officers to take a small woman into custody that was squirming around. Again as I described, touching the hands behind the back for a few seconds of someone that is not willing to do so is not easy and common sense does not enter into it. I was in a fight with a man that took a couple of minutes to get into custody and he was fighting 6 pretty big officers. So much for the one man show. Oddly, when I saw the four officers fighting a woman, I questioned the need or their ability to do the job. You see at the time I was not a police officer and was doing a ride-along. The officer I was riding with asked me how many people I have arrested and which ones fought. That is exactly what I ask you and that was why. It wasn't until about two years later when I joined a different police department that I found out the folly of my "common sense". Did it require 6 shots? Probably not. One or two "might" have worked according to which one(s) were fatal. As I explained in the last day or so (I think in response to Big Girl), the police don't fire a single shot and step back a wait a few seconds to see if it works. Maybe on television but not in real life. Again, it is not a question of intelligence but from experience and training. In the last local police shooting that I watched on very good in-car video on (from two different cars) the officer fired 7 times in about 2 seconds. Were they all needed? Which one or ones was fatal? I can't tell you but when faced with the threat up close, we don't stop to count bullets and call time out to judge effect. Having watched those videos a couple of dozen times I (and probably the officer involved) cannot tell you which rounds might have been fatal. If you are going to try and use the number of shots as an indication of anything, then you must be using the "common sense" that some rounds might have been needed but the officer fired "too many". Or perhaps your common sense tells you that 6 shots is proof of intent to break the law? I would be willing to bet that many PhDs would argue that point to the contrary.

We'll show those police, we will keep the average citizen from getting to work. That'll teach 'em!!

I cannot agree with this at all. It is "a lot" and not "alot". You can do something a lot and you can allot your time but you can't have alot of time.

Suggested reading might be the US Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio from 1968. This case gives officers the authority under reasonable suspicion to detain a person that the officer believes, by his experience and knowledge, "might be" about to commit a crime. He need not even have committed the crime and only looks like he may be about to commit a crime. In this case we have a crime that has been committed and a description given. In Terry, Detective McFadden saw what he thought (and has never proved) was an armed robbery about to happen. Why did he think that which he cannot prove? He watched 3 guys walk back and forth and appeared to be casing a store for a robbery. What was his belief based on? Only his experience and observations of what he thought was suspicious activity. He could prove nothing. What was McFadden's actions. As the guys approached the store, McFadden put them on the wall and reaching into a coat pocket grabbed (lo and behold).... A GUN. Hmmmm...... officer says I see what looks like a robbery about to go down based on my experience and as they were walking into the store, he finds a gun. The USSC only had one justice dissenting that the officer cannot use his experience and knowledge to briefly detain someone and check for weapons to protect the officer and citizens. Now comes along a MN officer that sees a person that looks like a robbery suspect that had recently occurred. He didn't need vast experience like McFadden because this crime had been reported. He only had to rely on his eyes and the USSC says that to do so is lawful I have no clue if the MN officer was justified and I don't know what he saw. I do know that the officer stated that he was stopping a possible robbery suspect, as reported by his radio traffic and at least somewhat backed up by snopes, Of course I have not seen that radio traffic released so even that is yet to be confirmed but again, to merely rely on the girlfriend as the end of the discussion is ludicrous at this point.

Did you really read it? Maybe you don't understand laws, reasonable suspicion and simple reading comprehension. He was not "wanted" as in, there was no warrant. You responded to my post with the snopes nonsense. Let's refresh our memories... this is my quote, "Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description". Yep, there it is. He "fit the description", meaning the officer was pulling him over as a potenial armed robbery suspect. Even the snopes article states exactly that with this quote, "WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case". Yep, there it is ... again. Snopes reports that he "might resemble" a suspected armed robbery. I love the "might resemble" because I doubt that the officer said on the radio... "This guy might resemble a suspect". He likely said something like, "This looks like the guy" or "I am looking at a guy that might be the suspect". Snopes is merely adding their opinion on the officer's thoughts. That is great for a claimed "fact" based site to add nothing but their opinion as "What's True". Does anyone else see the ludicrous nature of such a statement almost to the point of hilarity? Yes, he was an armed robbery suspect in the eyes of officers. How is an officer going to approach a guy that he thinks "may" have just pointed a gun at someone while committing a violent crime. Obviously the officer does not know but is stopping a person that he believes just pulled a gun on someone. Did he have warrants? No but I have never seen any claim that he did. If you want to quibble over the meaning of words go ahead but the girlfriend said that they were pulled over for a taillight and your "proof" that I was wrong and the girlfriend is right... was the statement by snopes that "he might have resembled an armed robbery suspect". Snopes doesn't sound like the vehicle was pulled over for a taillight.

Just two officers? Out of curiosity, how many people have you handcuffed while they were fighting? I am sure you can share your experience on how two officers, and with very little force, can handcuff a person that does not want to be handcuffed. I can assure you that if this was not a shooting and they used the force needed to get him into custody, you would be complaining of the force used. Oh yeah, and the guy was not was subdued. If he would have submitted to the handcuffs, as is required by law no matter the charges, he would have been subdued. I guess you think subdued (and I have never seen any legal bearing of that word) means touching. I can assure you that having a person on the ground and touching him is not him being subdued. At the very least he will be resisting until he gets on his stomach so they can handcuff him behind the back. But, I will await your explanation on how easy it is to take someone into custody, by placing both hands behind the back, having them touch or almost touch each other (handcuffs are not very wide) and then holding them there for several seconds in order to place the cuffs on broth wrists and all this while the person continues to struggle by keeping those hands from touching behind the back. The law enforcement community awaits your expertise.

I'm not sure how cool you have to be to say he has a handgun license and was stopped for a traffic charge. If it was some detailed explanation under stress I would call nonsense also.

And as always, realizing that most states have laws that require compliance with officers or that in itself is a crime. I have said it many times in these forums, TX law for example says you can get up to a year in jail if you resist (and do not injure the officer which is a felony) arrest even if the arrest is unlawful. Again, it is simple, you complain in court or in lawsuits, not by fighting with the police.

Now I am reading that the deceased did not have a weapons license and he was not pulled over for a taillight out. Of course the girlfriend spit that out while the guy was dying. Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description. According to some unconfirmed reports that I read the officer's recording (not the after the fact one by the girlfriend... making an alibi perhaps) that the officer ordered the guy not to move or to stop moving. Again, none of this is confirmed except that guy being stopped as a robbery suspect which I believe was put out by the state police. IF.. the "what if" game.... If these things are true, does it change some of the opinions that the officer is guilty and there seems to be no need for an investigation? Let's say the officer was pulling over a guy and maybe girl that he believes just committed an armed robbery, he ordered the guy not to move and then the guy did move and was shot.... does it change the "let's build the gallows and hang the officer now" which seems to have prevailed in some of the posts? Also and without knowing the truth of any of these, does it tend to make sense on the idea of let's see what the investigation shows before we convict? If only the armed robbery suspect is correct and the handgun license facts change, that alone would tend to change the dynamic of the incident completely from what has been portrayed.

I think you hit the nail square on the head. Obviously there are bad cops but very few. I have seen recent stats that show an average of 2% of officers even kill anyone in the line of duty in an entire career. I am not sure about those but they seem to be in line from that I have seen. That is not only unlawful or improper uses of deadly force but all of them, with most being ruled lawful That probably leaves well less than 1% of all officers ever being involved in a wrongful use of deadly force. Think about that. Over 99% of officers likely will never be involved in an unlawful death. Feel free to compare that to any other profession and any area of misconduct. And I completely agree that it takes a special person and some should not be in the profession. If it was up to the police, they would weed most of them out. Politicians sometimes get in the way of removing many of those officers. They also fall far short of money needed and not in salary but in training. I would be willing to bet that a majority of officers fire their weapons on duty once a year at annual qualifications. Any other training falls on the officer to purchase his own ammo, weapons, range membership, etc. Even in that actual firing of weapons, there is little training on use of force in general. I doubt that we will see any of those politicians stepping up and making those moneys available anytime in the near future.

The only procedure is to shoot until the threat is over. Not the television fire a single shot and step back and take notes if it appears to have stopped any potential attack. Officers are trained to fire multiple shots very quickly. The last officer involved shooting that I saw locally was 7 shots in around 2 to 2.5 seconds. There is not a lot of time to step back and view the results of shots fired and assess whether more are needed. To do so is to increase the risk of death to the officer. Maybe the first or second shot ended the incident but in less than another second and a half there simply is not time to make that judgment. The officer did not start the incident. The deceased (like almost always) started the sequence of events that ended in him being shot, not the officer.

Based on what? You have no facts at all other than the guy was shot. Speculation isn't a fact and the girlfriend's statement isn't a fact. What happens when (assuming he had it) the officer's recording is made public? Let's play "what if". What if the officers said give me your driver's license and within a second opens fire with no other commands? Yeah, the officer probably overreacted. What if the officer says give me your license and sees the guy reaching toward the gun and the officer yells "Don't do that!". Then "Stop!! Stop NOW!!" and the guy keeps reaching and then the officer opens fire? What if the officer says give me your license and opens fire within a second but the guy lunged for his weapon? Does the audio then completely change the scenario? Can the officer be totally wrong when seen one way and completely correct in another.... all changing only on the officer's words and actions? Can even the time frame look bad on the officer if the suspect lunged for a weapon when truthfully, the officer did say give me your license? As you note, the facts are not out yet you 100% agree that the officer was wrong. Jumping to conclusions on both sides is equally wrong. Looks bad? Sure. Is bad? How do we know at this point?

At least one officer dead.

Bullets13 has a sister on duty right now at Dallas PD. He has made contact with her after the shooting.

The black eye might be from the fact that the video never shows what happened before. In the car for example we see nothing but the aftermath. In BR we see very little as the videos are too far away or do not show the critical parts. The officers may be right and they may be wrong but people are drawing sides based on wishful thinking.

It appears that the officers were possibly shot by a sniper. Maybe three down. It has to be the officers' fault for being in uniform. I wonder if the community will be outraged.