KS police officer charged after traffic stop shooting

Jerzsubbie said:
I was going to ask the group but knowing your background and the fact that you usually make good logical arguments, I’ll direct it to you... why would you not charge or convict her?
Yes the guy deserved whatever he got as he made this into a big issue and took it so far as to fight with officers, but the law doesn’t permit street justice like that.
He never posed a deadly threat. Many have said “what if”, but he didn’t. I don’t feel sorry for the guy ONE BIT, but the female officer went right to the top in her use of force by using a taser, baton, fists/feet, or any other tool, albeit unintentional. She still did it. A 2:1 fight with no weapons should not require deadly force to be used immediately. If her being a female is part of the defense, she should find a new career.

I’ve checked my logic with LE friends and am not alone in my thoughts.
Click to expand...

I don't think I personally would convict because of personal responsibility. The man made his choice to fight with the officer and then bettered the officer having him in a comprised position. I'm not a police officer so I'm not sure of use of force continuum. But if I saw a guy on top of a police officer hitting them in the head as a citizen I would shoot the guy too. That's my personal reason I would not convict her if I was on the jury. He put himself in that situation notvthe officers.
 
Cowboy said:
I don't think I personally would convict because of personal responsibility. The man made his choice to fight with the officer and then bettered the officer having him in a comprised position. I'm not a police officer so I'm not sure of use of force continuum. But if I saw a guy on top of a police officer hitting them in the head as a citizen I would shoot the guy too. That's my personal reason I would not convict her if I was on the jury. He put himself in that situation notvthe officers.
Click to expand...
I fee like you’re still saying “because he deserved it” and I don’t disagree that he created that situation but it doesn’t seem to be legal in any way. He absolutely deserved to get his a$$ kicked, bit by K9, tased a handful of times, or take a trip down a flight of stairs, but I can’t say he deserved to be shot and possibly killed.

As for being a passerby, I would 100% have shot him to save the officer, but I think that’s a little different, civilian vs sworn LE. Most of us don’t carry tasers, OC, or other non-lethal and I’m not going to risk my own safety as a civ to fight with a perp.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
I fee like you’re still saying “because he deserved it” and I don’t disagree that he created that situation but it doesn’t seem to be legal in any way. He absolutely deserved to get his a$$ kicked, bit by K9, tased a handful of times, or take a trip down a flight of stairs, but I can’t say he deserved to be shot and possibly killed.

As for being a passerby, I would 100% have shot him to save the officer, but I think that’s a little different, civilian vs sworn LE. Most of us don’t carry tasers, OC, or other non-lethal and I’m not going to risk my own safety as a civ to fight with a perp.
Click to expand...

It was 100% his fault that the situation unfolded the way it did. That's not a legal view that's my view. No matter what any ADA told me I would not change my mind.

In a civil case I think it would be very differently for me I would find fault for the injuries from the gun shot.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
It was 100% his fault that the situation unfolded the way it did. That's not a legal view that's my view. No matter what any ADA told me I would not change my mind.

In a civil case I think it would be very differently for me I would find fault for the injuries from the gun shot.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I guess thats the difference. I’m trying to look strictly from a legal standpoint since the topic is the fact that she was charged and I can’t understand the outrage about charges being filed.

I wish there were a “personal liability” aspect to the law but it seems like we’re getting even farther from that as a burglar can sue you for injuries incurred while breaking into your house, thats even more mind boggling.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Gotcha. I guess thats the difference. I’m trying to look strictly from a legal standpoint since the topic is the fact that she was charged and I can’t understand the outrage about charges being filed.

I wish there were a “personal liability” aspect to the law but it seems like we’re getting even farther from that as a burglar can sue you for injuries incurred while breaking into your house, thats even more mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I also look at the difference between civil liability and criminal standards. Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she was trying to hurt him with intent to kill? The simple fact of her reaction to me would take that off the table.

This is better suited as a civil lawsuit for negligence.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
I also look at the difference between civil liability and criminal standards. Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she was trying to hurt him with intent to kill? The simple fact of her reaction to me would take that off the table.

This is better suited as a civil lawsuit for negligence.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, she did not intend to kill him. I’m not sure of the elements of the diff crimes but I would think she should be charged with something like attempted involuntary manslaughter assuming that is “without intent” or “as a result of negligence”.
But I see what you mean now about being better suited for civil vs criminal.

Thanks for “playing” and doing so in a non-combative manner as I know this is a hot topic for many.
 
Cowboy said:
Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she was trying to hurt him with intent to kill?
Click to expand...
Jerzsubbie said:
I would think she should be charged with something like attempted involuntary manslaughter assuming that is “without intent” or “as a result of negligence”.
Click to expand...
That is my take too, and I think it takes murder off the table. Do we know what she was charged with? The original article I don't believe said.
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
and if I fail to wipe thoroughly I may wind up with an anal infection. Should we pass a law on that as well?
Click to expand...
No that is being ridiculous. It is documented that wearing seat belts saves lives, same for SRS air bag systems in most cars.
If you decide not to wear the seat belt, that is your choice and your injuries will be substantial, you run the risk of being ejected from the vehicle,
etc etc etc. Expensive medical bills for your recovery if you are lucky to survive and the rest of us all pay higher premiums for the accidents.

Actor Gary Busey enjoyed riding his motorcycles, without a helmet, he is lucky to be alive after he had traumatic brain injury, was in a coma for a month.
 
J R Green said:
The state has the authority granted by the people. No more, no less.
Click to expand...

The people cannot grant rights they do not have, which includes 51% of the voting populace deciding to confer power to take away rights of 49%. Your statement is a skin of a truth wrapped around a lie.

J R Green said:
Your problem is you think yourself above all constraint.
Click to expand...

Not ALL constraint. I will certainly submit to just and lawful restraint. YOUR problem is that you are clueless as to what comprises lawful law. If some moron in a corner who has an AK bawls out "I AM KING" then you seem to think that compels us to bow down and acknowledge said king. Let me give you a hint: a tyrannical law with 51% vote behind it is still a tyrannical law. Sprinkling magic "election dust" on it changes nothing.

J R Green said:
If you don't want to follow the rules of society you should not expect the benefits of living in one.
Click to expand...

I dont want to follow "rules" which are baseless and autocratic. I might extend the same invitation to you, in fact.
 
Button Pusher said:
No that is being ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Actually it is not. It is also well documented that dirty toilet habits breed all types of diseases.

Button Pusher said:
It is documented that wearing seat belts saves lives, same for SRS air bag systems in most cars

If you decide not to wear the seat belt, that is your choice and your injuries will be substantial, you run the risk of being ejected from the vehicle, etc etc etc. Expensive medical bills for your recovery if you are lucky to survive and the rest of us all pay higher premiums for the accidents..
Click to expand...

I agree that my bills will be higher for injuries. However, after having owned my own insurance brokerage for 15 years, there is absolutely NO evidence that seat belt laws (or motorcycle helmet laws) have any affect at all on insurance premiums. This analogy is false. If I wish to take the risk, who are YOU to tell me I cannot? Frankly it is none of your business if I wish to engage in any number of risky activities.

Button Pusher said:
Actor Gary Busey enjoyed riding his motorcycles, without a helmet, he is lucky to be alive after he had traumatic brain injury, was in a coma for a month.
Click to expand...

And your point is? No one is arguing that wearing helmets in downhill skiing does not reduce head trauma injuries, either. The point is that a free person is able to live as he wishes, take what risks he wishes, without some hectoring nanny wagging the finger at him threatening him for not taking the precautions THEY think he should. We call that "liberty." We used to believe in it in this country.

If I am not directly assaulting your life, liberty or ability to pursue happiness as you see fit, then to be to the point, it is none of my damned business what you choose to do. Again, that is what being "free" means.
 
I admit I am inadequate to explain "no loss, no crime" to persons who don't want to admit this is the root of the whole problem.

I think that by explaining in detail to people whose eyes are glazed over that it will help. THAT is my stupidity. I own it.
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
and if I fail to wipe thoroughly I may wind up with an anal infection. Should we pass a law on that as well?
Click to expand...
Ill just start here I guess.

No, you can afford some antibiotics. You may/may not be able to afford the helicopter ride, 2 month ICU stay on the Neuro ICU , the rehab for a month, or the rest of your life on a vent at the local cabbage farm. The majority of folks cannot, and with a reduction of THOSE expenses, brain injuries being one of the most costly ....everyone's insurance rates stay lower. I pay for the guy who is sitting in the vent unit without good insurance for the rest of his life. When a seat belt could have saved him, his way of life, his house and retirement, and my money, in the end.

I usually enjoy reading your posts, and they usually pose a good, well thought out argument. I think you are left of center on this one.....starting by the seat belt law got this guy shot. Assault on a police officer got this guy shot with the help of a ND. Ive been pulled over a few times with no seat belt, and it didn't end this way. As it shouldn't (Ill agree with you on that).
 
Sneakymedic said:
Ill just start here I guess.

No, you can afford some antibiotics. You may/may not be able to afford the helicopter ride, 2 month ICU stay on the Neuro ICU , the rehab for a month, or the rest of your life on a vent at the local cabbage farm. The majority of folks cannot, and with a reduction of THOSE expenses, brain injuries being one of the most costly ....everyone's insurance rates stay lower. I pay for the guy who is sitting in the vent unit without good insurance for the rest of his life. When a seat belt could have saved him, his way of life, his house and retirement, and my money, in the end.

I usually enjoy reading your posts, and they usually pose a good, well thought out argument. I think you are left of center on this one.....starting by the seat belt law got this guy shot. Assault on a police officer got this guy shot with the help of a ND. Ive been pulled over a few times with no seat belt, and it didn't end this way. As it shouldn't (Ill agree with you on that).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your gracious reply.

I don't expect you or anyone else to wade through my maniacal rants, but I DID say that I don't think the cops were out of line for shooting this idiot. I DO think he brought this on himself with his race baiting imbecility. I am not at all sure that even though this was probably an ND, that I would have any problems with the female cop shooting him. He was both an imbecile, and a dangerous imbecile.

I will say the above as many times as I need to.

The other issue though is NOT whether I can "afford" the treatment I may need due to my stupid choices. The question is whether society at large has the RIGHT to force me into behavior because.... because...., crap I don't even know how to say it other than "It would make me feel like a bad person to just let you suffer the consequences of your dumb decisions, so I will pass a law that you can't make dumb decisions because then I might be unwilling to let you suffer those consequences, and this would inconvenience me." This is frankly the most twisted and bizarre reasoning I have ever seen.

I am coming from the perspective that the "majority" or "the state" or "the government" or "police" have a moral right to prevent me from actions which directly cause harm to others, as well as punish me for actions I may take that cause harm (bodily harm or property) to others. I do NOT agree with the (specious) reasoning that says that certain activities have a TENDENCY to cause harm to myself and then the logic goes that since I live in society, society may prohibit me from doing those activities because it is pricey to fix my bad choices.

Apologies for the "word salad" here, but it is important, I believe, to know what it is we are arguing for, or against. My point is that ANY law should be backed up with the ability of the state to execute lethal force in enforcing that law...., therefore, the law should be limited to instances where lethal force would be justified. Seat belts, porn (adult), homosexual behavior, drug taking, and a number of "crimes" are not "crimes" because they directly harm no one but the doer. They may be stupid. They may be self destructive. They may be morally abhorrent. They may in fact weaken the fabric of society. That is irrelevant when it comes to exercising the force of the state on free men and women.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
My point is that ANY law should be backed up with the ability of the state to execute lethal force in enforcing that law...., therefore, the law should be limited to instances where lethal force would be justified. Seat belts, porn (adult), homosexual behavior, drug taking, and a number of "crimes" are not "crimes" because they directly harm no one but the doer.
Click to expand...

Curious to your take on laws against public defecation and urination, since they have the potential to harm others. Should the acts not be against the law or be enforceable with up to lethal force?
 
Last edited:
3ought2 said:
Curious to you take on laws against public defecation and urination, since they have the potential to harm others. Should the acts not be against the law or be enforceable with up to lethal force?
Click to expand...
I am not sure I actually did that, but since you asked.... Re: "public" defecation and urination, I am assuming that you are referring to defecating and urinating on someone else's property? If so, then it should be the PREROGATIVE OF THE PERSON WHOSE PROPERTY I AM DEFILING, not some abstract statute against the practice in general.

Re: public nudity (a related item), frankly, I am not sure what I think about that. My initial rxn is that people should be free to travel in public without having to be confronted by people's private parts, but I have not given it much thought, to be honest.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
Details are weird. Shoot happened in LAWRENCE (which is home of KU, about 30 mi west of KC). Investigation done by Johnson County (where I lived, in Lenexa) which is in KC Metro area. Maybe I am missing something.
Click to expand...

You'd think the Douglas County Sheriff's Dept or KBI would be doing the investigating.
 
tans, do you think it should be a law to have a pilots license to fly people around?
Or only charge a non licensed pilot after they crash, and cause harm to others.
After all, they are not causing harm until they do. Right?
I get the idea of sovereign citizen, but that don't work in real life.
 
Last edited:
BASIL said:
tans, do you think it should be a law to have a pilots license to fly people around?
Or only charge a non licensed pilot after they crash, and cause harm to others.
After all, they are not causing harm until they do. Right?
I get the idea of sovereign citizen, but that don't work in real life.
Click to expand...

Pardon the sarcasm below. Not trying to be mean or hateful but just to make a point. Not personal, so please don't take it as such

I am all for protecting the phenomenally brain dead people who would climb aboard a commercial airliner piloted by some homeless wine-o because they could get a cheaper flight. That would happen so much, you know. Plus the rapacious airlines would of course IMMEDIATELY begin paying minimum wage to "pilots" fresh out of flunking algebra and who decide to become pilots. Those companies with vast investments would of course be totally irresponsible and throw idiots who struggle to read "The Cat in a Hat" into the cockpit./sarcasm off

Saying you are not for GOVERNMENT MANDATED laws of prior restraint is a far different thing than saying there should be no standards. Society in general self organizes, self polices and comes up with rules WHICH FAR EXCEED IN EFFICIENCY THOSE OF THE STATE IN "PROTECTING" us, as well as coming up with means to satisfy the common good (roads and medicine, for example).

Believe it or not, I am not an absolutist on state authority. I can see how clear statistical correlation between adherence to standards might argue for SOME state supervision. HOWEVER, I am exasperated with issues like the one above (I have heard a long litany of these type objections) because the distinction between gov regulation and NO regulation is so demonstrably false. The real debate should be between market regulation and government regulation and who has the power to enforce it.

The other false assumption here is whether state licensing is in fact capable of providing the protection it claims. There is NO area more susceptible to corruption, dilution of standards, graft, dishonesty and flagrant disregard for standards, than the entities government trots out to "protect" us. No better illustration exists than TSA. When you compare our Rube Goldberg imbecility in airport safety to, for example, Israel (whose airline security has been ceded to the airlines themselves.... who amazingly enough have a deep interest in passenger safety!!!), there is no contest.

Milton Friedman is hardly a "sovereign citizen" kind of guy, and he addresses these issues very well in his little book "FREE TO CHOOSE." I would highly recommend it.
 
tenor.png


I didn't even know this was a real phrase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom