Click here to learn about the case of Swauve Lopez: http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4920095
In mid-May of this year, a 17 year old boy was shot in the back by a police officer while in handcuffs, before the boy was shot, he escaped from a parked police car (still in handcuffs).
What are your thoughts about this case after visiting this site ?
Do you think the cops had a justifiable reason for shooting and killing Swauve? If so, on what grounds? If not, why?
2006-07-11 06:18:27 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
REMEMBER, consider the facts given from what you read at the website given!!
2006-07-11 06:20:26 · update #1
he was a suspect in a MURDER...he was told to STOP...he was percieved as a THREAT to the general public. he should have sat in the car.....justifiable in shooting him YES..given what they knew...
2006-07-11 06:25:09 · answer #1 · answered by Jack Kerouac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The story you linked gives almost NO facts. All I know is a guy was arrested and handcuffed, then escaped. I'm willing to assume he was still handcuffed, but it really doesn't say. It also doesn't say whether or not he "stepped through" the handcuffs, putting his hands in front of him. That is a HUGE difference.
The story also doesn't give any of the details of what was occurring at the time.
If someone (anyone) was shot in the back with his hands cuffed behind him while doing nothing but running away, then whoever shot him should go to prison. But I have a suspicious that the truth is a little more complicated than that. Even when handcuffed, there are things a suspect can do to present a threat to a police officer. So don't jump to conclusions just yet.
2006-07-11 06:28:18 · answer #2 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They shot a murder suspect who was running away from custody. Why did he run away if he wasn't guilty? Would you have cared if he'd been white instead of black?
While I would think they could have stopped him without shooting, there are few details of the actual event. So we have no ability to judge this based on all the facts. That leads to knee-jerk reactions.
It seems the kid was probably guilty, plus he had been armed and was definitely dangerous. Justifiable? Possibly, maybe even probably. I'm not very sympathetic to the plight of criminals and murderers.
2006-07-11 07:00:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
people who don't know the specifics of the law that governs this case nor the specifics of what happened cannot make a meaningful assessment
I will side with the actual court that had responsibility to rule on the case because for them it wasn't a game, it was a real responsibility and they were instructed in the laws that applied
my opinion, even after looking at a site that is not giving me all the information, is irrelevant
2006-07-11 06:23:34 · answer #4 · answered by enginerd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, it was probably justified... though they should have been trained to aim for non-lethal targets (ie, legs). The dumbass deserved it for escaping from a police car... I'm all about evading the police, but when they've got you, they've got you... don't tempt them to find an excuse to shoot you. Remember, they've already decided that you're guilty, that's why they're arresting you.
2006-07-11 06:26:02 · answer #5 · answered by smokingun 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not really. 1st, the boy posed no threat to the, he was not armed. 2nd, the boy was a human being who still has equal protection of the law. No one could take his life without due process. 3rd, the police was classical. Such was a crisis and not a military takeover.
2006-07-11 06:25:44 · answer #6 · answered by april_murcia 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i could say it fairly is homicide. because of the fact on the 2nd which you fired at this individual, there is not any way of being particular of besides the fact that if he/she is an unlawful immigrant, yet you probably did have an purpose to injury or kill them. i comprehend many all of us is turning out to be sick of unlawful immigration, yet you besides could ought to contemplate whether you may do an identical element on the Canadian border. Taking the regulation into your own palms is often frowned upon by way of regulation enforcement, surprisingly whilst against the regulation of unlawful immigration is being punished with dying.
2016-12-14 06:45:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I have always wondered why they did not use nets to stop people.
Would be so simple. I have seen a net that shots out of something like a gun. I think policeman get into situations where they fear for their lives and they go beserk.
2006-07-11 07:36:27 · answer #8 · answered by Lou 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it was a case of escaped from death row convict,shoot on sight.
2006-07-11 06:38:06 · answer #9 · answered by Balthor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
look depends on the crime if he did something horrible then yes he should just get killed but to stop some one all u have to do is shoot out their knee caps.
2006-07-11 07:21:59 · answer #10 · answered by wedjb 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋