Patrick Lyoya Shot while wresting cop for taser

[thetragichippy]

Thoughts? 

The cop shot the man while on his back, in the head.  The media is going to have a field day with this.....

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

The suspect  is stopped with the wrong license plate, meaning it might be a stolen vehicle. That makes it a possible felony and heightens the risk to the officer.  It is not like a person will not fight over a misdemeanor because sometimes they do. It is just much more likely if a person is facing prison time to want to use all means to resist. Then the suspect adds to that by trying to get away.  Stop resisting arrest or detention. It is not difficult. Make bail and go to trial two years later. For all we know, the guy might have borrowed a license plate only get a citation. The officer does not know at that point and cannot read the guy‘s mind. 

The the idiot videoing saying stop talking to him like that. I am assuming he is commenting to the officer but not sure. 

The suspect during the struggle to resist arrest gets his hands on the officer’s Taser making him a deadly risk to the officer.

It is likely a legal use of force:

But….. 

In hindsight (covered later) shooting “might have been” premature. Only because….. in calm reflection of not being in the fight, the biggest threat of the Taser is to get the wires/leads (darts which are fish hooks-I think they used to use Eagle Claw and Mustad)) attached to you. This is maybe a 95+% chance of incapacitating you.

I am only going to guess that the Taser darts had been deployed during the struggle. If they had, the Taser is still a weapon but is probably not as likely to cause incapacitation.  With the darts gone, is mostly a pain compliance tool at that point….. maybe. It is also entirely possible that at least one of the darts was making contact with the officer. If so, it still has incapacitation capabilities by completing the circuit by the Taser making contact with any part of the officer’s body.

 That is a lot of what ifs.

The United States Supreme Court said in Graham v. Connor that an officer in a use of force incident should not be judged in hindsight however. They said the officer is faced with a “split-second decision”.  It was a unanimous decision that it must be judged through the eyes of an officer at that time, “even if it later may seem unnecessary in the peace of the judge’s chambers”. They ruled that “totality of circumstances” (used to determine probable cause) should not be used in this kind of case but should rely on the concept of “objective reasonableness”. That is determined by an opinion of, what would a reasonable officer determine faced with the same set of circumstances and who has to make that split second decision. The unanimous decision clearly showed that it is easy to sit in a judge’s  chamber six months later and say something differently could’ve happened when sitting in the peace of the situation you are not faced with that life-threatening situation. It is easy to look back in a calm reflection and to say, maybe I could’ve done something differently.

So without calm reflection of looking back at the video and not being involved, would  a reasonable officer feel that he might be in danger of serious injury or death? Remember that the use of deadly force in self-defense, including by a civilian, does not require you to be in danger of only death but also a serious injury which could be a broken bone.

At least going by Texas law I would say that it is likely justified. 

[thetragichippy]

14 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The suspect  is stopped with the wrong license plate, meaning it might be a stolen vehicle. That makes it a possible felony and heightens the risk to the officer.  It is not like a person will not fight over a misdemeanor because sometimes they do. It is just much more likely if a person is facing prison time to want to use all means to resist. Then the suspect adds to that by trying to get away.  Stop resisting arrest or detention. It is not difficult. Make bail and go to trial two years later. For all we know, the guy might have borrowed a license plate only get a citation. The officer does not know at that point and cannot read the guy‘s mind. 

The the idiot videoing saying stop talking to him like that. I am assuming he is commenting to the officer but not sure. 

The suspect during the struggle to resist arrest gets his hands on the officer’s Taser making him a deadly risk to the officer.

It is likely a legal use of force:

But….. 

In hindsight (covered later) shooting “might have been” premature. Only because….. in calm reflection of not being in the fight, the biggest threat of the Taser is to get the wires/leads (darts which are fish hooks-I think they used to use Eagle Claw and Mustad)) attached to you. This is maybe a 95+% chance of incapacitating you.

I am only going to guess that the Taser darts had been deployed during the struggle. If they had, the Taser is still a weapon but is probably not as likely to cause incapacitation.  With the darts gone, is mostly a pain compliance tool at that point….. maybe. It is also entirely possible that at least one of the darts was making contact with the officer. If so, it still has incapacitation capabilities by completing the circuit by the Taser making contact with any part of the officer’s body.

 That is a lot of what ifs.

The United States Supreme Court said in Graham v. Connor that an officer in a use of force incident should not be judged in hindsight however. They said the officer is faced with a “split-second decision”.  It was a unanimous decision that it must be judged through the eyes of an officer at that time, “even if it later may seem unnecessary in the peace of the judge’s chambers”. They ruled that “totality of circumstances” (used to determine probable cause) should not be used in this kind of case but should rely on the concept of “objective reasonableness”. That is determined by an opinion of, what would a reasonable officer determine faced with the same set of circumstances and who has to make that split second decision. The unanimous decision clearly showed that it is easy to sit in a judge’s  chamber six months later and say something differently could’ve happened when sitting in the peace of the situation you are not faced with that life-threatening situation. It is easy to look back in a calm reflection and to say, maybe I could’ve done something differently.

So without calm reflection of looking back at the video and not being involved, would  a reasonable officer feel that he might be in danger of serious injury or death? Remember that the use of deadly force in self-defense, including by a civilian, does not require you to be in danger of only death but also a serious injury which could be a broken bone.

At least going by Texas law I would say that it is likely justified. 

I'm a huge just comply guy, and the license plat told me probably a stolen car. I'm curious to see how the media plays it.  

[tvc184]

4 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm a huge just comply guy, and the license plat told me probably a stolen car. I'm curious to see how the media plays it.  

Michael Brown redux. A gentle giant who was merely trying to explain to the officer in a calm manner but the officer refused to discuss the case and used force unnecessarily against an unarmed person who had yet to be convicted of what he was stopped for or even arrested at that point. 

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Michael Brown redux. A gentle giant who was merely trying to explain to the officer in a calm manner but the officer refused to discuss the case and used force unnecessarily against an unarmed person who had yet to be convicted of what he was stopped for or even arrested at that point. 

I'd bet money some form of this is reported...