Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/21/09 10:14 AM, JoS wrote:
Way to be mature about this had have a reasonable discussion about the study and its findings.

It didn't find shit. This study is a complete fabrication that holes ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on reality.

A power tool held to someone isn't a weapon? First of all, that's fucking wrong.

"He could've been target shooting,"

What are these pictures of? Where is the location? How is looking at a fucking photograph going to hold ANY fucking scope on what would happen in a real situation.

lmao, "I am unarmed yet holding a power drill to this lady that could easily kill her!"

Please don't think I'm spouting bullshit. Tests ARE bullshit, and while it is interesting that they chose what they did, it can only be applied to the test itself, not to reality.

At 3/22/09 12:47 PM, JoS wrote: Actually it was not proven they shot first. And I believe the quote is "We have to stop him", unless you can find me a source that specifically quotes what you claim. My source He also rammed the police first.

my source www.globaltv.com/globaltv/regina/story.h tml?id1356974

He also shot the third officer in the head as she stepped out of her vehicle, not aware of the fact he was armed. She thought he was in custody and did not have her weapon drawn we she got out.

;;;
Which is why I have some doubt about the story(s) if he was so intent on killing Mounties...why did he let the last officer live ? I read he hit near her hand & she had fragmentsa of a bullet in her ear, and arm & torso. He never shot her in the head.

Thats quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever heard you say. Congratulating him on shooting two officers in the head. Lets not forget he claimed he didn't aim, just held the gun over his head and fired randomly. Do you really believe that story?

;;;;
Its possible, but more to the point I didn't congratulate him...I just said it was nice shooting because they are a difficult shot to make. I don't believe all of the crowns view on how it went down either. Like why no one would say anything about why these 2 cops wouldn't wait for back up...testimony said he was being irrational, covering their asses maybe, I don't know.
They knew where he was going.
He didn't kill the third officer when he realised she wasn't coming after him.
THere is more to this than we're getting info on & I believe the officers did scare him & he thought he was going to be beaten or killed.
Not that that makes it right for him to kill someone, but this story IMO isnt black & white at all.

At 3/22/09 01:21 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/21/09 10:14 AM, JoS wrote:
Way to be mature about this had have a reasonable discussion about the study and its findings.

It didn't find shit. This study is a complete fabrication that holes ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on reality.

A power tool held to someone isn't a weapon? First of all, that's fucking wrong.

the vast majority (89%) of subjects who saw the power screwdriver, specifically 92 out of 103, also identified it as a gun.

Craftsman Power Screwdriver

9mm beretta

"He could've been target shooting,"

What are these pictures of? Where is the location? How is looking at a fucking photograph going to hold ANY fucking scope on what would happen in a real situation.

The photographs depicted a potentially violent crime scene, in which a male Caucasian perpetrator appeared, armed with a Beretta 9 mm handgun. Four scenes were employed. The first scene was a "simple" one, sparse in terms of potentially distracting objects. The second was "complex," including street clutter, garbage cans, and other potentially distracting items. The third scene included several bystanders and a young, female "victim" threatened by the armed perpetrator, as well as the typical street clutter of Scene 2.

An additional fourth scene was generated, identical to Scene 3 except in one respect. In Scene 4, the weapon was replaced with a power screwdriver, as in our earlier work in the eyewitness realm...

Thus, in the first three pictures, the "perpetrator" was seen to be holding a handgun or pointing it at a "victim." In the fourth, the "perpetrator" was an unarmed person holding a power screwdriver, or perhaps waving the tool for emphasis in a non-lethal discussion or argument with the "victim." ,,,

Each respondent viewed only one of the four scenes described above. Respondents were given the following instructions: "On the screen, you will see a scene or a series of scenes which may or may not involve a crime or sources of danger. These scenes will be shown very briefly. A person holding a weapon is a source of danger, because he or she could point it at you and shoot. You may intervene to protect yourself or others if you see an individual holding a weapon.

They picked a power screwdriver because of this shooting.

lmao, "I am unarmed yet holding a power drill to this lady that could easily kill her!"

Two points, one is that the people misidentified they power screwdriver as a gun, and two how do they know he was threatening her with it, he could just be holing it and having a conversation?

So each picture has increasingly more information. I guess it would help to see the pictures to discuss how people reacted.

I think a video would've been more appropriate for such a test. If they're trying to recreate the situation, that feeling, or are they not testing on "in the moment" thinking and just going more for identifying objects/subjects?

At 3/22/09 04:25 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/22/09 12:47 PM, JoS wrote: Actually it was not proven they shot first. And I believe the quote is "We have to stop him", unless you can find me a source that specifically quotes what you claim. My source He also rammed the police first.

my source www.globaltv.com/globaltv/regina/story.h tml?id1356974

Broken link. Here are some quotes from another source though.

The first shot was at the moving police vehicle, before the crash, from a stationary Mr. Dagenais vehicle," Mr. Johnston said, referring to the opinion of Dean Dahlstrom, a civilian member of the RCMP who testified as a firearms expert.

Mr. Dahlstrom said one of the bullets that struck the pursuing police truck came from a straight-on angle, unlike all the other shots that were fired after the police truck crashed broadside into Mr. Dagenais's pickup truck.....

Mr. Dagenais said Bourdages fired twice at him, but the firearms expert said only one round was shot from Bourdages's 9-mm handgun.

As well, Mr. Dagenais said he fired only five times, but there were seven spent casings in his vehicle and the two police vehicles were hit by eight bullets from his gun, Mr. Johnston said.

And while I have yet to find a source where he says that he is going down, this is the closest I could find. Mr. Roe addressed comments heard on an audio recording, in which Bourdages said, "We gotta do what we gotta do here." Source

He also shot the third officer in the head as she stepped out of her vehicle, not aware of the fact he was armed. She thought he was in custody and did not have her weapon drawn we she got out.

;;;
Which is why I have some doubt about the story(s) if he was so intent on killing Mounties...why did he let the last officer live ? I read he hit near her hand & she had fragmentsa of a bullet in her ear, and arm & torso. He never shot her in the head.

She was still buckled into her seatbelt and dropped below the dash. She shot at him but apparently did not hit him and he ran away, probably because he knew other officers would be coming. IS he the same as the guy in Alberta, no, but he intended to injure or kill the officers. Just because he only managed to wound one of them and not kill her does not change his intentions. She was firing back, he didn't want to get shot by her so he left. That does not make it self defense though.

He fired first, he killed two officers, wounded a third and he lied on the stand. Do you really believe he made at least 8 shots while lying down and just holding the gun up firing at random?

Its possible, but more to the point I didn't congratulate him...I just said it was nice shooting because they are a difficult shot to make. I don't believe all of the crowns view on how it went down either. Like why no one would say anything about why these 2 cops wouldn't wait for back up...testimony said he was being irrational, covering their asses maybe, I don't know.

Spiritwood has a population of 907. I would hazard to guess there would only be 3 or 4 officers working at a time. So they sent all their officers to deal with it, there was no one else as back-up.

They knew where he was going.
He didn't kill the third officer when he realised she wasn't coming after him.
THere is more to this than we're getting info on & I believe the officers did scare him & he thought he was going to be beaten or killed.

He ran from police after he assaulted his sister I think it was. He was under arrest (you do not have to be in handcuffs to be under arrest).

He wanted to get away from police. everyone who runs away from the police wants to get away. He took it much further though then most people do. Killing police in an effort to escape arrest is not self-defense.

At 3/22/09 04:55 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So each picture has increasingly more information. I guess it would help to see the pictures to discuss how people reacted.

I think a video would've been more appropriate for such a test. If they're trying to recreate the situation, that feeling, or are they not testing on "in the moment" thinking and just going more for identifying objects/subjects?

They were given 2 seconds to react and make a decision. Its not like they got to see 2 seconds then get to ponder the decision, they have to make their judgment and react within the 2 seconds, or in real life they would be dead. I think a video would make it worse, and would provide no benefit in determining if ti was a gun or screwdriver.

2 seconds is a long time imo. They should've made it 1.

This is a perfect study because in the real world police magically fucking pop up in the middle of a situation with no entry or ability to hear or see movement and reactions from people.

I just looked at this picture of a naked girl and decided to jack off. Damn sure if it wasn't a picture though I wouldn't have decided to sit on my couch and jack off. What a fucking stupid study dude... what exactly are you trying to prove? You say your bullshit about how people have a ridiculous perception of police because of what they see on TELEVISION and yet you have a ridiculous perception of people because of the way they react to a picture? You're a fucking idiot, go eat a doughnut or something.

I agree the test isnt accurate, but I also agree with jos on that people say retarded things about police officers like how a they should have shot a violent knife wielding maniac in the leg while there running towards them.

or even better they should use martial arts! yeahhhh risk my life for the saftey of a knfe weilding maniac, hard decision aint it?

At 3/22/09 08:01 PM, thedo12 wrote: I agree the test isnt accurate, but I also agree with jos on that people say retarded things about police officers like how a they should have shot a violent knife wielding maniac in the leg while there running towards them.

or even better they should use martial arts! yeahhhh risk my life for the saftey of a knfe weilding maniac, hard decision aint it?

You missed the fact that she shot FIVE TIMES and there were innocent people around who could have been hit by stray bullets, if she was a good enough shot to get him 5 times in the chest without hitting innocents she should have been a good enough shot to hit him in the leg. Being an officer of the law is about protecting and serving the community, not your own bitch ass.

At 3/22/09 08:15 PM, JustsTrollingAlong wrote:

You missed the fact that she shot FIVE TIMES and there were innocent people around who could have been hit by stray bullets, if she was a good enough shot to get him 5 times in the chest without hitting innocents she should have been a good enough shot to hit him in the leg. Being an officer of the law is about protecting and serving the community, not your own bitch ass.

-the chest is alot larger then your legs, plus its in a relativly startic postion even when running

- a leg shot wouldnt garentee stopping him

- you dont have alot of time to think when a knife weilding maniac is running at you, its alot easier to say, "well I would have blah blah blah" after it happend .

-the man himself was a public saftey risk, so saying that you shouldnt shoot at him becuase you could possibly hit standbyers is retarded.

-like jos sad, officers have the right to come home at the end of the day, it immoral to expect someone to value your life above there own.

You shoot until the subject has stopped doing whatever it is they were doing that caused you to shoot them in the first place. If it takes 5 shots to make the m drop the knife, you shoot them 5 times. Police officers shoot to stop, not to wound, not to kill, to stop. If they don't stop you keep shooting till they do.

This study is completely fail-proof because of the following reasons;

- I frequently attempt to power drill people in the face, and identifying me doing this as "dangerous" is incorrect.

- Police officers, despite what many believe, are completely unable to view any situation, ever, in context, nor are they able to ever hear what's happening or gleam any more information that can't be grabbed from a photograph.

- Despite what even more people may think, a photograph offers every single fact that could possibly wanted about a situation. For example, as this brilliant study of yours would say, a reasonable American should shoot the man in this photo.

At 3/22/09 08:22 PM, thedo12 wrote:

-the man himself was a public saftey risk, so saying that you shouldnt shoot at him becuase you could possibly hit standbyers is retarded.

No, it's not. A single police officer that could have been stabbed isn't a "public safety risk", the maniac fucking cop unloading bullets in a crowded area is. It's interesting that this "brave" cop would value her own life so much that she would risk slaughtering a random civilian 5 times without even flinching.

Why wasn't this cop armed with a tazer or pepper spray, again?

At 3/22/09 08:27 PM, JoS wrote: You shoot until the subject has stopped doing whatever it is they were doing that caused you to shoot them in the first place. If it takes 5 shots to make the m drop the knife, you shoot them 5 times. Police officers shoot to stop, not to wound, not to kill, to stop. If they don't stop you keep shooting till they do.

I bet there are technologies to stop though. That's an interesting note, where do you think the evolution of weapons will lead? Do you think it's possible we'll eventually be able to have a weapon that will stop the enemy at all costs without harm?

Like for instance I saw this navy commercial that said at the end, "working every day to unman the front lines."

maybe that's just a gimmick.

At 3/22/09 09:59 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 3/22/09 08:22 PM, thedo12 wrote:

-the man himself was a public saftey risk, so saying that you shouldnt shoot at him becuase you could possibly hit standbyers is retarded.

No, it's not. A single police officer that could have been stabbed isn't a "public safety risk",

what do you think hes going to do after he stabs the police officer?????????????
:the maniac fucking cop unloading bullets in a crowded area is.

you mean the expertly trained woman there to protect you?

It's interesting that this "brave" cop would value her own life so much that she would risk slaughtering a random civilian 5 times without even flinching.

if a crazed knife weilding maniac came running at you and you had a gun would you shoot yes or no?

Why wasn't this cop armed with a tazer or pepper spray, again?

- tazers arent always effective at stopping people and if someone is running at you with a knife then your not gonna take chances

-pepper spray can only be used at close range , and inalot of cases angers the person it being used aiants or is ineffective.

OC spray is not an appropriate response to someone advancing on you with a knife. Neither is a police officers mad ninja skills. If someone is threatening you with death or grievous bodily harm, a firearm is the appropriate response, not a baton, pepper spray or joint locks.

I also find it amusing now how you are asking why she didn't have a Taser. People think cops shouldn't have them, but when someone gets shot all of a sudden those same people are arguing for Tasers.

She fired at him not just to protect her own life, but her partner, as well as public safety. If he is going to stab a cop on the side of a busy street what is to stop him from stabbing someone else? And since when do the police not have the right to protect themselves? Is this the only occupation in the world where worker safety means nothing?

As for adding sounds and other information. Sounds and motion would only serve to distract. the idea was to see how people would react under the best possible conditions, could they identify a gun or could they identify potential threats. 90% of people who saw the drill thought they saw a gun. When the police shoot someone with a wallet, or a drill after chasing them, in dark lighting conditions and with actual elements of danger, people say they are trigger happy or racist. This study proves that it is not the case at all. It shows it is really just the central nervous system and our mind and bodies ability to interpret what it see's and act upon it.

I notice all the cop haters here though keep calling it junk science because it does nto reflect real life. That was not the point of the study. The point was to see how people interpret what they see and react to it in a short amount of time. On the street 2 seconds is more than enough time for you or someone else to get shot.

Finally, the study did not say that people should shoot in that picture, they said 60% of people WOULD shoot. Big difference.

I am not a cop hater I am a test hater.

At 3/22/09 04:55 PM, JoS wrote: Broken link.

Sorry I don't know why its been removed.
Try this one, about the video tapes from the RCMP car that disappeared, & were according to a RCMP witness "weren't relevant" -right , I believe that...evidence from a MURDER CASE is NOT RELEVANT....EVRYTHING is Relevant when it comes to a case like this esp, if cops are dead !
http://www.thestarphoneix.com/news/RCMP+
tapes+thrown+away/1330398/story.html

Also Jos did you see this article, RCMP still spinning their FANTASY tale, against the video shot & they didn't know it when they concocted t'their' stories (which back each other up...but don't match what the video shows...funnny 'eh)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1112 768.html
If this link takes you to the frontpage of the paper...just click on 'news' in the banner, it will open to metro, Nova Scotia etc. click on Canada & open the story on testimoney for the inquirey of the Vancouver taser death.

The video tapes were labeled as irrelevant because none of the tapes were in the camera during the event. How would they be relevant if none of the footage was of that incident?

At 3/23/09 02:08 PM, JoS wrote: The video tapes were labeled as irrelevant because none of the tapes were in the camera during the event. How would they be relevant if none of the footage was of that incident?

;;;;
ANYTHING At a MURDER SITE IS RELEVANT.
If they weren't relevant...why was one destroyed?
IF there wasn't one in the camera...why have the camera.
Sorry Jos, its stuff like that that SCREAMS COVERUP, to me.
Police do not go out on patrol & load in a video tape after something has happened, they do it before hand so they have evidence to back up their story. High speed chase, 2 cops no one bothered to put a video tape in the machine...give me a break dude ,I'm not buying that for 1 second.
No evidence on the tape is possible, but it should still have been available. You omit evidence, you loose case IMO.

Anyone touches, moves or changes anything about evidence is F^(&!#@ B.S.
If they were irrelevant, they should have been available. It doesn't change that he killed 2 cops. But in my mind it puts doubt on the officers who handled the evidence...hmmm could have been proof they shot first , so as an investigating officer you wouldn't want the jury to see this "cop" killer" have a chance at a lesser charge & if I was on a jury & you put any doubt in my mind, no matter what else, I would vote to NOT convict.
With the cops firing at him first his story of firing back in fear has more credibility & he may have got a lesser charge like manslaughter instead of 1st degree.

At 3/23/09 05:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote: ANYTHING At a MURDER SITE IS RELEVANT.

Video tape from previous days is irrelevant. If the video tape had been from that day and those officers, then yeah, it would be relevant.

If they weren't relevant...why was one destroyed?

Actually all three were destroyed, as per RCMP policy on video storage. After a certain amount of time tapes are destroyed or erased unless they are required. The footage was from other shifts, not of the chase or anything leading up to it, hence they were destroyed.

IF there wasn't one in the camera...why have the camera.

There should be a tape in the camera, but it does not always happen. Tape could run out during shift or numerous other reasons.

Sorry Jos, its stuff like that that SCREAMS COVERUP, to me.

Well then thats just sad. You really expect everything to go perfect and if one card is out of line it must be because of a cover-up. I am sure you have heard of Occam razor.

Police do not go out on patrol & load in a video tape after something has happened, they do it before hand so they have evidence to back up their story. High speed chase, 2 cops no one bothered to put a video tape in the machine...give me a break dude ,I'm not buying that for 1 second.

The tape deck is I believe in the trunk, not upfront. Maybe no one thought to put a tape in before they went out? Or maybe the tape ran out earlier in the day?

No evidence on the tape is possible, but it should still have been available. You omit evidence, you loose case IMO.

The officer followed proper procedure. He documented what was on the tape in his notes, then documented their destruction. Should it have been done, probably not, but that doesn't change the fact of what was on them. The property officer and the supervisor we both aware of what was on the tape.

Anyone touches, moves or changes anything about evidence is F^(&!#@ B.S.

If the tapes are unrelated to the case then they are not evidence.

If they were irrelevant, they should have been available. It doesn't change that he killed 2 cops. But in my mind it puts doubt on the officers who handled the evidence...hmmm could have been proof they shot first , so as an investigating officer you wouldn't want the jury to see this "cop" killer" have a chance at a lesser charge & if I was on a jury & you put any doubt in my mind, no matter what else, I would vote to NOT convict.

Investigators did not destroy the tapes, the property officer did. Are you actually going to argue that 3 videotapes (at 7 hours a tape that 21 hours of tape to watch) that were documented as not being related to the case by the property officer is enough to raise reasonable doubt?

Lets review the facts though. this man assaulted his sister. When police attempted to arrest him he drove off as they tried to make the arrests. He was doing excessive speeds on dirt roads, driving dangerously. He was trying to escape, then to claim he was only acting in self-defense, as you try and escape police custody. Thats not self defense, thats a creative lawyer. The police have the lawful authority under the laws of Canada to which we all must abide by to arrest him. To run and then shoot at them is not self defense.

With the cops firing at him first his story of firing back in fear has more credibility & he may have got a lesser charge like manslaughter instead of 1st degree.

Nope wrong. Killing the cops could not be manslaughter. Section 231 4.a. of the Canadian Criminal Code states that any culpable homicide of a police officer is 1st degree murder, whether planned or not. The only possible exception would be if they were making an illegal arrests and the person was aware it was an illegal arrest. However the arrests in this case was not illegal.

At 3/22/09 10:40 PM, thedo12 wrote:

what do you think hes going to do after he stabs the police officer?????????????

Hopefully get tazed until he can't move a fucking muscle. Like what should have happened the second he even pulled out the knife.

you mean the expertly trained woman there to protect you?

She was expertly trained to make bullet's that only kill criminals and leave innocent bystanders unharmed while shot? Amazing training she has.

if a crazed knife weilding maniac came running at you and you had a gun would you shoot yes or no?

If there where people around that I would also be potentially killing, and if I had a tazer, or pepper spray? No.

- tazers arent always effective at stopping people and if someone is running at you with a knife then your not gonna take chances

Tazers electrocute you then cause all your muscles to cramp up. They're not always effective, but neither are bullets. I'd say they are both as likely to make someone drop a knife.

-pepper spray can only be used at close range , and inalot of cases angers the person it being used aiants or is ineffective.

Ever been pepper sprayed? It shoots a good 20 feet, and yes, it angers the fuck out of you, I can attest to that... it also put's you in agonizing pain if you try to open your eyes, and makes it very hard to breath, and next to impossible to run.

At 3/22/09 11:25 PM, JoS wrote: OC spray is not an appropriate response to someone advancing on you with a knife. Neither is a police officers mad ninja skills. If someone is threatening you with death or grievous bodily harm, a firearm is the appropriate response, not a baton, pepper spray or joint locks.

Shooting someone with a tazer isn't mad ninja skills.

And firing into a crowded area is not an appropriate response to almost anything.

I also find it amusing now how you are asking why she didn't have a Taser. People think cops shouldn't have them, but when someone gets shot all of a sudden those same people are arguing for Tasers.

Because cops tend to do things like taze people for yelling too loudly. Or tazing people until they stop living. Tazing someone until they stop trying to murder you? Fuck yeah.

She fired at him not just to protect her own life, but her partner, as well as public safety. If he is going to stab a cop on the side of a busy street what is to stop him from stabbing someone else? And since when do the police not have the right to protect themselves?

When that right involves a very high chance of murdering a civilian.

Is this the only occupation in the world where worker safety means nothing?

If a construction worker was in danger, and could only save his life by risking the lives of 5 other people, then I'd want that construction worker to think of something else as well.

As for adding sounds and other information. Sounds and motion would only serve to distract. the idea was to see how people would react under the best possible conditions, could they identify a gun or could they identify potential threats.

The best possible situation for assessing a situation is to see a still picture devoid of any sort of context?

90% of people who saw the drill thought they saw a gun. When the police shoot someone with a wallet, or a drill after chasing them, in dark lighting conditions and with actual elements of danger, people say they are trigger happy or racist. This study proves that it is not the case at all. It shows it is really just the central nervous system and our mind and bodies ability to interpret what it see's and act upon it.

No, it show's that the average civilian is worse at assessing a situation based on a purposely misleading picture then the average cop is at assessing a situation based on what's playing out right in front of their own eyes, what the perp is saying, what the people around him are doing in reaction to what he's holding, context, background information, and ever single other one of their five senses (because a good cop can taste evil).

"Fans say that NFL referee's are bad at sighting flagrant fouls, but when we showed random fans overhead pictures of football games during play, they where less able to determine if anyone in those pictures where committing fouls!"

I notice all the cop haters here though keep calling it junk science because it does nto reflect real life. That was not the point of the study. The point was to see how people interpret what they see and react to it in a short amount of time. On the street 2 seconds is more than enough time for you or someone else to get shot.

I must have missed it (and I'm not being rhetorical), but what was the difference between how the civilians scored on those tests, and how the same number of randomly selected police scored on the exact same tests?

Finally, the study did not say that people should shoot in that picture, they said 60% of people WOULD shoot. Big difference.

If a cop found someone attempting to power drill a fucking hole in someones face, they'd probably shoot too.

At 3/23/09 10:10 PM, JoS wrote:

At 3/23/09 05:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote: ANYTHING At a MURDER SITE IS RELEVANT.

Video tape from previous days is irrelevant. If the video tape had been from that day and those officers, then yeah, it would be relevant.

;;;;I'm going to say we're going to have to agree to disagree, & I would push my lawyer in such a case to keep that relevent in the jury's mind.

Nope wrong. Killing the cops could not be manslaughter. Section 231 4.a. of the Canadian Criminal Code states that any culpable homicide of a police officer is 1st degree murder, whether planned or not. The only possible exception would be if they were making an illegal arrests and the person was aware it was an illegal arrest. However the arrests in this case was not illegal.

;;;;
Actually you might want to have a look at the case in Montreal where the accussed was found not guilty of killing a Police officer that he shot in his bedroom (there is no doubt he shot the cop, he even admitted it) but he was found not guilty.
Defendant Basil Parasiris, dead officer Constible Daniel Tessier
-- Jos, I'd give you links but I have been hitting so many broken links lately, with the news services your better off to google it yourself. I found good stuff on CTV & go to one of the stories on Jury instruction to see the Jury request for evidence review Judges instruction etc.--
In instructing the jury the judge gave them the choices of First degree, second degree, Manslaughter & to let him go because of his "self defense" claims. The jury let him go.
So while the "charge" may always be FIRST DEGREE, when it goes to the jury...they still have choices.

At 3/23/09 10:56 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: (because a good cop can taste evil).

...

......

Seriously?

...

Seriously!?

So now, not only do cops need superhuman reflexes and shooting skills (you ever try shooting a moving target in the leg with a pistol?), they need to be fucking psychic, too. "Taste evil"? You're a goddamn loon.

If a cop found someone attempting to power drill a fucking hole in someones face, they'd probably shoot too.

And be justified in doing so.

This post seems to be going in many different directions.

If I may add, I recently graduated from the police academy in late 2007, though I have no on the streets experience, I have studied many different topics related to the use of force.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Graham v. Connor, that reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of how a reasonable officer on the scene would respond, rather than from the 20/20 perspective of hindsight.

To determine if an officer's actions were objectively reasonable, the courts look at the facts and circumstances the officer knew when the incident occurred.

Courts recognize that criminal justice officers must make split- judgments about the amount of force needed in a particular situation under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

This may help clear somethings up and lead to more questions. Though the above explanation is a general idea, I'll try to answer any questions you may have about it.

At 3/24/09 11:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Actually you might want to have a look at the case in Montreal where the accussed was found not guilty of killing a Police officer that he shot in his bedroom (there is no doubt he shot the cop, he even admitted it) but he was found not guilty.

I am aware of that situation, and I even made a thread about it once. The difference being though is that he claims to not have known they were police officers and they were not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they made attempts to ensure they were identified as such.

In the Spiritwood case he knew they were police officers and he knew they were trying to arrest him.

At 3/24/09 06:20 PM, JoS wrote:

At 3/24/09 11:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Actually you might want to have a look at the case in Montreal

The difference being though is that he claims to not have known they were police officers
In the Spiritwood case he knew they were police officers and he knew they were trying to arrest him.

;;;;
That wasn't what I was trying to point out.
I was trying to show that it doesn't matter that a manditory 1st degree murder charge is leveled in the death of an officer.
I showed an example that a jury can be given "options" in sentencing. With first degree & innocent not being the only choices.
If the defense in the Spiritwood case, had been able to convince a jury that the missing tapes could have been valid, & were deliberatly destroyed to cover up inconsistencies in the Prosecutions case (that they had fired first ) Then the defendants 'story' of firing back blindly in fear for his life may have held more weight in the minds of the jury & guilty of a lesser charge may have been the result.

Remeber there was no way from the evidence available, could it be shown, who fired first.