Of course it's not certain, but that doesn't matter. Self-defense is almost always a decision that must be made in at most a few seconds. You make the best decision you can under the circumstances. If the jury agrees it was a reasonable choice under the circumstances that you were aware of you walk--there was no mens rea, and without mens rea there are very few offenses that you can be convicted of.
-
Features
NFL jumping the shark and kissing #BLM's ass
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
Of course it's not certain, but that doesn't matter. Self-defense is almost always a decision that must be made in at most a few seconds. You make the best decision you can under the circumstances. If the jury agrees it was a reasonable choice under the circumstances that you were aware of you walk--there was no mens rea, and without mens rea there are very few offenses that you can be convicted of.
J842P
Veteran Member
That's just racist.
You probably live in a state where seat belt is only a secondary offense--the cop can't pull you over for it but can ticket you for it if he pulls you over for something else.
https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/SeatBeltLaws_Aug20.pdf
As usually happens in cases like this the cop's actions are not based on the initial event.
He wasn't removed from the car because of the seat belt ticket, he was removed from the car because of the gun and the marijuana.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
So... you can walk do the street with a loaded rifle in hand... at night... in the middle of a large gathering...
But you damn well be certain you are wearing a seatbelt in the car!
WTF?!
1) This case the cop knew there was a gun.
2) Simply reaching into the glove compartment isn't going to get you shot. Reaching very quickly is not a good idea, though! Reaching very quickly towards a known gun is basically asking for a bullet.
You're trying to make things way too simple. The details matter!
His intent was almost certainly escape. That doesn't mean he won't kill a cop to accomplish that, though.
The problem here is that you're assuming the ordering of the car is because they are black. You're neglecting the fact that cops often order people out of cars when it's more than a simple traffic offense. And when it's not just a traffic ticket it's far more likely the person being stopped is going to resist violently.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
OK. If one needs to neutralize one needn't bring 'suspects' in to custody. One just needs to stop whatever is planned or just completed or assure whatever not go further. Isolating and calling in secondary players is still better than use of force or even capture. We can use vehicles that enwrap cars so that suspects can be safely hauled to safe places where they can be later extracted and processed. We can use robots and airborne remote controlled automatic sense and netting devices to disable people without injury.
Use water, foam, or other mechanical means to neutralize suspects. I'd even use acoustic, electromagnetic, optic, measures to neutralize suspects and whatever weapons happen to be present. A well controlled lazar can disable without killing or maiming. It's completely anachronistic to load half trained 'peace' officers up with general lethal tools which they can emotionally apply whenever they get nervous.
The idea is to protect and to serve. Protect by neutralizing suspects without lethal force. Serve by providing information and help when needed. Hell. I'm all over superglue methods for control of those out of control. Nothing like suspect trying to run away suddenly stopped in their tracks because his or her feet are superglued to the street. Once stopped just advise them they can still be immobilized by more glue.
You know perps are going to figure this out so you may as well be prepared to defend against such as I've just described. It will be a funnier world when we have back and forth gluing and ungluing or countering any other of the already existing tactical devices I've just described.
The good guys will win if they figure out that they are much better off with non lethal tactical devices and therefore keep inventing and adapting new ones.
Use water, foam, or other mechanical means to neutralize suspects. I'd even use acoustic, electromagnetic, optic, measures to neutralize suspects and whatever weapons happen to be present. A well controlled lazar can disable without killing or maiming. It's completely anachronistic to load half trained 'peace' officers up with general lethal tools which they can emotionally apply whenever they get nervous.
The idea is to protect and to serve. Protect by neutralizing suspects without lethal force. Serve by providing information and help when needed. Hell. I'm all over superglue methods for control of those out of control. Nothing like suspect trying to run away suddenly stopped in their tracks because his or her feet are superglued to the street. Once stopped just advise them they can still be immobilized by more glue.
You know perps are going to figure this out so you may as well be prepared to defend against such as I've just described. It will be a funnier world when we have back and forth gluing and ungluing or countering any other of the already existing tactical devices I've just described.
The good guys will win if they figure out that they are much better off with non lethal tactical devices and therefore keep inventing and adapting new ones.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
For the umpteenth time, in context I was responding to someone saying it is okay to shoot someone when they think it is "possible" they have a gun!! Jesus fucking Christ on a Pogo Stick.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
He likely wouldn't have. And again if you read my subsequent fucking post, the bigger issue to me personally as I stated is fucking leaving him there to die. Jesus fucking Christ, why is it that you saw the video and are not even commenting on this?!?! What kind of world do we live in?
laughing dog
Contributor
It should when it comes to state sanctioned professionals acting on behalf of the state.
Derec
Contributor
Certainty is not something you can have in these types of situations.
JJ could have easily avoided getting shot - he could have went with Officer Garriga to the police car instead of trying to go for the gun.
Derec
Contributor
How do you know? He certainly got to his gun.
They started giving him first aid about 3min after the shots were fired.
Derec
Contributor
We could also use phasers that can be set to "stun".
But enough of science fiction solutions!
Derec
Contributor
A black?
Plenty of black (as well as white) suspects get shot without being ordered out of the car. What are you babbling about?
Police order people out of the car frequently when it becomes more than a simple traffic stop, for the safety of both the officer and the suspect, regardless of race.
The officer wanted to increase the physical separation between JJ and the Glock, so that no misunderstandings about reaching movements happen. Unfortunately, JJ decided to close that distance and try to retrieve his gun.
People are hardly always ordered out of the car. And what would you suggest? No scifi solutions like drone-deployed nets and the like, please.
Only so-called "persons of color" need to be kept safe?
Besides, JJ would have been perfectly safe had he not decided to dive into the car.
Negotiators should be called for every traffic stop, or only those involving people of so-called color?
Facts of the case matter. Otherwise we get the simplistic "police bad, black perps good" bullshit that permeates both the Left and the professional sportsball leagues.
No, it is not.
Derec
Contributor
In the video, there is no gun visible when JJ first exits the car. After he is shot, the gun - with a huge extended mag - can be seen partially outside the jacket straddling the passenger seat and the center console. That means he actually did go for the gun and managed to move it before he was shot.
Him attempting to drive away and attempting to get to his gun are hardly mutually exclusive.
They did attempt to render aid about 3min after the shots were fired.
It was more than possible. He did get to his gun.
laughing dog
Contributor
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, it doesn't. That's bullshit. The jacket is being shuffled around constantly in the video. The gun would have been completely outside the jacket. The jacket is moved. You are reaching in order to fit your ideology. It's POSSIBLE he was going for the gun, but less likely because the gun would have been completely outside the jacket.
Derec said:
No one argued that, but trying to get away without getting the gun is a reasonable inference since getting the gun takes time.
Derec said:
First. Show camera footage with timing. That's what you've done for all your other claims. So keep up with the standard you are establishing. Merely someone's word based on someone else's word is not good enough. Second, 3 minutes is a long ass time. If it's even true, in an emergency situation with someone bleeding police need to take health just as seriously as they take other things they act urgently upon. This just isn't the first time I've seen police not taking someone's life seriously. I know he's an apparent criminal but his life still has value. You may disagree and start disrespectfully laughing about dindu nuffin thugs, but that shows a problem on your side not a solution.
Derec said:
I notice you are using very vague words "get to." That is at worst very sneaky and at best a superficial way of understanding something. He was in some kind of proximity to his gun. This is established. It is possible he was even trying to get it out of his jacket. And someone who is biased might make that determination. It is not provably probable. Moreover, the length he was in the car would certainly have allowed him to both fully take the gun out of his jacket and then to hold it in his hand and point. This didn't happen.
One could try to argue it was reasonably suspicious he could have had the gun, but not probable, since he alternatively was trying to start the crashed car. Now, police were yelling at him where's the gun and similar things as he was on the ground suffering. Assuming they weren't yelling this for the cameras, one would think they honestly concluded he had a gun. But just like your assessment of probabilities, they were wrong.
Upon not seeing a gun and his insistence it was in the car, at least one police officer could have quickly and safely checked the right-hand side of the vehicle to reckon they were all wrong, just like you in the alleged assessment of probabilities. Within some 10 seconds, they could have been applying aid and calling for an ambulance.
So, again, my primary concern over this incident is the lack of urgency with which police act toward the aiding of an individual suffering and dying, yes, criminal or not contrasted to the ease in general in which they make probability assessments in favor of killing someone or escalating situations when it's flawed. And apologists who lower the bar of civil society, much like Trump in the White House lowering the bar of democracy, doesn't help the situation much either.
Derec
Contributor
Speaking of bullshit, what you wrote there is bullshit. The gun was mostly outside the jacket and pulled toward the driver seat, as the extended mag was lying on the center console. He didn't make a hard right turn for the centrifugal "force" to do it, so he most likely grabbed the gun himself.
It takes a second, and he could do that at the same time as pressing the accelerator.
Shots are fired at around 6:30 mark, aid starts getting rendered around 9:30. Same video.
I think the delay came from them not being sure where the gun ended up. They kept asking him where the gun was and telling him to stop moving.
Also, he did not die at the scene, but in surgery later. So the 3min likely did not play a role.
State Attorney's Office: Officer who shot and killed Jamee Johnson was justified in his actionsWTXL said:
I use somewhat vague language because we do not know everything.
He may have had it in his hand and dropped it after he was shot. We know the gun moved toward the driver seat, to wit lying across the center console, when it wasn't there before. Something or somebody must have moved it.
He did not have the gun after he was shot. That doesn't mean he wasn't in contact with it at the moment he was shot. If you want to argue that he was merely trying to drive away and not trying to reach the gun, then you'd have to explain the gun moving to the center console. I think it is highly unlikely it ended up there by accident just as result of inertial forces due to the motion of the car.
They called it in immediately, so an ambulance was on its way.
Please. Not everything is about Trump. And police officer being cautious about shot but alive suspects seems to be standard procedure since we see it in all these instances in different departments and officers do not get in trouble for it. So it must conform to their training. Should it be changed? I do not know.