DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jury awards $4 to family of black man killed by sheriff’s deputies in Fla.

Jury awards $4 to family of black man killed by sheriff’s deputies in Fla.

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 05/31/18 09:35 AM EDT

A jury in Florida awarded just four dollars to the family of an African-American man who was shot in his own garage by a police officer.

The New York Times reports that a jury concluded last week that the officer who fired the shots that killed Gregory Hill four years ago did not use excessive force, but that the police department was "one percent" at fault for the death.

Hill was shot three times by an officer responding to a report of loud music. Officers said he was holding a weapon, which was later found in his back pocket.

The jury awarded Hill's family just $4: $1 for his funeral expenses, and $1 for each of Hill's three children.

“It’s heartbreaking,” Hill’s fiancée, Monique Davis, said after the ruling. “There are a lot of questions I want to ask.”

St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara praised the jury's ruling on Facebook, calling it an end to a "difficult" and "tragic" situation.

Police are "pleased to see this difficult and tragic incident come to a conclusion,” Mascara wrote.

“Deputy [Christopher] Newman was placed in a very difficult situation, and like so many fellow law enforcement officers must do every day, he made the best decision he could for the safety of his partner, himself, and the public given the circumstances he faced,” he said. “We appreciate the jury’s time and understanding.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...led-by-sheriffs

How insulting! Why even give a jury award? You are telling these kids the cops killed your dad but they aren't responsible... here's a dollar. smdh

If the cop was in the right, that's fine. But $4? I would be absolutely hostile over that. $0 would be so much better.

Yeah, that was mean.

I am not going to respond again, but what is the point of posting these types of stories? I mean........I think I know the answer to that one, but come on, man!

We can all post stories that make whichever side look bad. For example, I read an article and watched a video of a bunch of black athletes beating the crap out of a little 14 year old white boy. Why isn't that being posted?

I can tell you why I didn't post it. I didn't want to escalate the already high tensions between the two groups. Thus, I have to wonder why guys like you, Perfect, and others continually post such things that paint a very different picture?

I wonder if you guys really feel better about yourselves by trashing the other side. You post articles that only portray one side in a negative light. Does that make you a better person? And I am not just talking to you. There are a ton of you on here who do this crap over and over again.

Has it ever occurred to you guys that perhaps we might be better off if we were a little more understanding of the other side and not so hateful and bitter in our perceptions of those who are not like us?

Sensationalism sells better than sex these days.

FWIW, I don't really care for about 99% of what OCD posts, but in this case, to me it appears his commentary is more about the $4 settlement than any commentary about the cops or the deceased. I can't really fault himfor posting an article that someone else (the media) decided to sensationalize in the title.

bet this crap would stop if we start targeting cops pensions.

I don't know any of the details of the case so this comment has nothing to do with whether it was the RIGHT ruling or not... but I completely agree with you.. the $4 is more like rubbing salt in the wound.. would be better to just tell them they lost and give them nothing.. they'd be mad but at least they would have had their day in court...

Also, if the jury said they were 1% responsible and awarded them $4... then they determined that this man's life was worth $400?

Family of Florida man shot by cop awarded $4 by jury, deputy found not liable

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...lars/660379002/

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal court jury found the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office partially liable in the January 2014 fatal shooting of Gregory Hill Jr. in the garage of his home, but damages awarded to Hill’s family amount to 4 cents.

After four days of testimony last week, evidence and attorneys’ arguments, the jury deliberated about 10 hours before finding that St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara, in his official capacity, was negligent but was only 1 percent liable.

The jury found that Hill, who was 30, “was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired and that as a result of the influence of such alcoholic beverage,” he was 99 percent liable for the “incident and his resulting injuries,” according to the verdict form.

Deputy Christopher Newman was found not liable.

The jury awarded $4 in damages — $1 to Hill’s mother, Viola Bryant, for funeral expenses and $1 to each of Hill’s three children for loss of parental companionship, instruction, guidance, mental pain and suffering.

Because the jury decided the sheriff was 1 percent liable, the portion of the award the Sheriff’s Office must pay is reduced to 4 cents.



The lawsuit filed by Hill’s mother in 2016 on the second anniversary of Hill’s death, alleged negligence and municipal liability against Mascara.


The suit also alleged that Newman, who already had been cleared by a grand jury, violated her son's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force resulting in a wrongful death under Florida law.

Bryant’s attorney, John Phillips, argued that the deputy and Sheriff’s Office used “unreasonable, negligent and excessive” tactics, but the jury did not agree.

Mascara issued a statement through the Sheriff’s Office that said, “We are pleased to see this difficult and tragic incident come to a conclusion.

“Deputy Newman was placed in a very difficult situation, and like so many fellow law enforcement officers must do every day, he made the best decision he could for the safety of his partner, himself, and the public given the circumstances he faced.

“We appreciate the jury’s time and understanding and wish everyone involved in this case the best as they move forward.”

Phillips did not make himself available for comment other than to say through his assistant in his Jacksonville, Fla. office that he wanted to spend some time with his family this weekend and will review the trial and verdict before making any statements.



Newman shot Hill, who worked at a Coca-Cola warehouse, while he and his partner, Deputy Edward Lopez, were investigating a complaint about loud, obscene music at Hill’s home as students at Frances K. Sweet Magnet School, which is across the street, were being let out.

The deputies knocked on the garage door.

When no one responded, Newman knocked on the front door. He heard the music get louder and turned to see the garage door opening. Hill stood facing out of the garage with his left hand on the door and his right hand down.

Newman drew his gun, and as the garage door started to go down, fired four times toward Hill, tracking upward.

When a SWAT team arrived soon after and went inside the garage, it confirmed that Hill was dead and found a gun in his back pocket.

He had been shot three times: twice in the abdomen and once in the head.

Toxicology reports from Hill’s autopsy showed his blood-alcohol level was nearly 0.40 percent, almost five times the legal limit of 0.08 percent to drive, sheriff’s officials said.

Investigators identified his weapon as a 9mm handgun, which was later found to be unloaded.


A little more information but nothing really to explain the monetary amount.

It's hard to get accurate info on how the payouts would have worked in this case. Here CBS says that because the guy was drunk and it was determined to be more than 50% at fault (99% in this case.. makes you wonder how that was determined), he wouldn't have been eligible for any payout, no matter the size.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gregory-hil...-bringing-case/

Typical. Minorities being abused by police then disgraced and slapped in the face in court. The only way out is to vote our way out.

Reading the article, I still don't see why the Cop wasn't found at fault.

Did this Hill guy ever reach for his unloaded firearm?

Another article that clears a lot of things up. Surprisingly it's from CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/us/florid...hill/index.html

'Black lives don't matter,' lawyer says after jury awards $4 in police killing

Jury awards $4 in police killing 00:45
(CNN)A Florida family is "heartbroken" after a jury awarded $4 in damages for funeral expenses and pain and suffering in a case in which a St. Lucie County deputy fatally shot a father of three through his garage door, the family's attorney said Thursday.

Deputy Christopher Newman killed Gregory Hill Jr., 30, in 2014 after a mother picking up her child at a school across the street called in a noise complaint.
Newman and another deputy responded to Hill's home, Hill partially opened the garage door, closed it and Newman fired four times, hitting Hill three times, including once in the head, according to court and police records.
No charges were filed against Newman, who said he shot Hill because he brandished a handgun. Hill's mother, Viola Bryant, filed a lawsuit against Newman and Sheriff Ken Mascara, alleging wrongful death, negligence, excessive force and violations of Hill's 14th and 15th Amendment rights.
Bryant also accused a SWAT team that responded to the scene of firing so much tear gas and causing so much damage to Hill's one-story home that no one can live in it now.
Read Newman's response
After 10 hours of deliberation last week, a jury found that Newman was not liable in Hill's death and that Mascara was 1% liable. Hill was 99% responsible for his own death, the jury ruled, according to court documents.
In deciding damages in the case, the jury awarded Bryant $1 for funeral expenses, and $1 for each child's "loss of parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and ... mental pain and suffering," verdict forms show. Hill's children are 7, 10 and 13.
Division of liability
Because the jury found that Mascara was only 1% responsible, the verdict was reduced to 4 cents, and then, because the jury found that Hill was drunk at the time, the final payout was nothing.
Read the verdict forms
Mascara applauded the verdict, saying, "Newman was placed in a very difficult situation and like so many fellow law enforcement officers must do every day, he made the best decision he could for the safety of his partner, himself and the public given the circumstances he faced."

Attorney John Phillips, who represents Hill's family, called the ruling "perplexing" and questioned why the jury would award $1 for $11,000 in funeral expenses and another dollar for each child's suffering when it could have simply awarded no damages.
The jury consisted of one black man, two white men and five white women, he said.
Court rules forbid him from questioning jurors, so he can't get the answer to a question that's been dogging him: Were they trying to send him and the family a message?
"That a black child's pain is only worth a dollar is exactly the problem with the plight of the African-American right now. This says, black lives don't matter," he said.
Phillips plans to file a motion for a new trial in US District Court, and if that's denied, he will take it to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
How it began
On January 14, 2014, around 3 p.m., a mother picking up her child at Frances K. Sweet Elementary School heard loud music blaring from Hill's home.
Testimony showed Hill was playing Drake's "All Me," a song rife with F-bombs and N-words. The mother took offense and called police.
City law prohibits "unnecessary noise" and provides that offenders get a warning on the first offense in 24 hours and a citation on the second. A third complaint may result in a misdemeanor charge. This was Hill's first.
Newman and Deputy Edward Lopez responded and knocked on Hill's garage door and front door.
Gregory Hill Jr., seen with his daughters and son, Gregory III, was scheduled to marry his fiance the month after he was killed
Gregory Hill Jr., seen with his daughters and son, Gregory III, was scheduled to marry his fiance the month after he was killed
"After Newman knocked on the doors, the garage door opened revealing Hill within the comfort of his own garage and home," the lawsuit alleged. "Upon information and belief, Deputy Lopez indicated loudly that Hill had a gun and then the garage door closed. Despite the door being closed, Newman fired his handgun approximately four times and killed Hill."
Read the lawsuit for yourself
The bullet from the first shot got stuck in the door, Phillips said. The second and third hit Hill in the abdomen, and the fourth struck Hill's head, he said. Lopez did not open fire.
Not realizing Hill was dead, the deputies called for a SWAT team and snipers, according to the lawsuit. They kicked in doors and cut holes in the garage door, the suit claimed.
"Deputies shot tear gas canisters into the Hill home through many windows while severely damaging the windows and interior of the home and leaving toxic tear gas residue in the home," the lawsuit said.
Once inside, officers found Hill dead with an unloaded handgun in his back pocket, not his hand, court records show. Toxicology would later show Hill was intoxicated, to the point he could not legally drive.
Issues pushing attorney to appeal
Thirty witnesses were called during the trial, Phillips said, some of whom contested Newman's narrative that he saw a gun and that he demanded Hill drop the weapon before opening fire.
Among those was Hill's oldest child, 13-year-old Destiny, who was 9 at the time. She sat on a bench at the school across the street as the encounter unfolded. She testified that her dad's hands were empty, according to court records.
Responding to the lawsuit claim that Hill never raised his firearm or threatened deputies, Newman retorted simply, "Denied."
Phillips said he has numerous problems with the court proceedings, which will help form the basis of his appeal.
Hill's oldest daughter, Destiny, right, testified her father's hands were empty.
Hill's oldest daughter, Destiny, right, testified her father's hands were empty.
One is what he called the "evasiveness" of a police expert, who, despite answering defense questions, claimed to be hard of hearing when Phillips questioned him, the lawyer said. Phillips also alleged deputies changed their story about how Hill was holding the gun and whether he aimed it at Lopez, the other deputy.
He also said there was no blood spatter on the gun, which seems to back the family's claim that the weapon remained in Hill's pocket the whole time.
There were issues regarding timing as well, the attorney said. It was determined that Newman fired all four shots in less than 1.2 seconds, and an expert said the final shot to Hill's head would have immediately disabled his motor capabilities. This raises the question in Phillips' mind: How did Hill get the gun in his back pocket after he was shot?
Another factor prompting the attorney to seek a new trial is that the defense mentioned Hill was on probation for drug possession, which Phillips feels was meant to vilify Hill, as Newman had no way of knowing this when he responded. Hill's probation was also set to "automatically terminate" 11 days before his shooting, he said.
Phillips has handled many high-profile cases, most notably the Jordan Davis "loud music" trial in Jacksonville, and said he has rarely been left so disturbed by a jury's findings. He said he will be filing his motion for a new trial in the same federal court in coming weeks.
"This one'll haunt me for a long time if we can't get it reversed," he said.
CNN's Madison Park contributed to this report

My god, he was closing his garage door and that was enough to PO the officer and he shot to kill. That's not self defense, it's murder.

If the description is accurate then how the hell could he be found not liable. How the hell can you say your(the cops) life was in danger as you are firing at a guy as his garage door is closing?

Putting the race factor aside, because this type of stuff happens to other races also . I am so sick of this BS . There yahoo cops who are giving a bad name to the good cops who serve the public evry day

8 men and women, approved by both sides, who had a LOT more information than anyone here does, spent 10 hours debating and discussing, and they decided the cop was not liable and the dude was worth a grand total of 4 dollars.

Now, it is early afternoon and this dude is extremely drunk, and stupid enough to blast out loud and obscene music right across the street from an elementary school, at pickup time, with lots of kids outside. Then, either still on or recently off probation, he is carrying a gun, within 500 feet of a school. Pretty sure police protocol and requirement is to view him as an imminent threat to public safety and apprehend immediately. Then, after the cops have identified him as having a gun, he either flees or resists arrest by closing the door.

Stupid punk + next to school + gun seen by cops + attempt to resist = dead stupid punk.

White, black, brown, green, purple, pink or polka-dotted, the threat needed to be eliminated and it was.

Fox News headline says it was 4 cents.. they can't devalue life fast enough.

See when you say it like that it sounds so ominous, like some sort of special operations kind of stuff.. pretty cool.. like he was coming around the corner and hiding out behind a tree with his gun drawn waiting for the unsuspecting elementary school kids to get within range so he can take some of them out.. or maybe he was after the faculty? I don't know, I missed the first 5 minutes I was getting popcorn..... was he alone or did he have accomplices? Was there a second wave of attack coming? Maybe he had a bomb planted somewhere...

Nah, he was a drunk dude in his garage listening to loud music.

But I see your point.. "eliminating the threat" sounds so much cooler than "shooting the drunk dude"..

Drunk dude with a gun across from a school playing loud offensive music resisting police after all the school shooting that have happened.

Had he shot up the school you would have been all over the police for not doing anything to stop it.

Also, "4 dollars, 0 dollars would be so much better.

This explains it.

I thought the thread title was a type o and it was 4 million dollars, but that's not the case.

Then I thought, not even the most racist anti-righteous situation would get this from a "jury" because you'd not get 7'ish people to agree to this.

Then the first line quoted makes it make sense, the Jury wanted to award 0, as tragic as it is because it's always tragic when someone dies this way.

It's clear to me now, even though I don't have any way of knowing, that the Judge probably gave the jury instructions, (see in this messed up 2018 world, juries can't even be juries without Judges sticking their noses in by giving "jury instructions")

and the Judge's Jury instructions probably stated, (because it's the only way it makes sense), that florida law requires something be awarded for each category
Funeral expenses, and then each of his 3 children.

If the Jury wanted to award nothing, and not being allowed to, they did this instead.

See the example of a mac'donalds sale price sometimes offered of buy one Quarter Pounder and get the 2nd Quarter pounder for 1 penny.

It seemed crude to me until I realized it must be that mac'donalds computer systems won't allow them to offer an item for "buy one get one free" because the computer won't allow a sale for 0.00,.

On that, It was in his own garage, on a loud music call.
It's just a messed up situation in a messed up world and sad.

Read this the other day.... just ridiculous...

jc

I think you guys know I am pretty strong when it comes to being pro police but this is insane.

There is no way this isn't murder. A man decides to have a good time in his own home and other than loud music (during the day and not at night) is not causing any problems.

He is then shot and killed for closing his garage door, an act which shows no sign of violence at all.

I don't care if he was drunk. He was in his own HOME. He wasn't even out in the yard doing anything dangerous.

This is flatout murder and it's disgusting this cop can just invade someone's property with no warrant and kill them because he got offended over a garage door being closed. Did he have a cam on at all?

The problem with a jury of peers is when the so called peers are idiots.

The fact that multiple adults, who are presumably allowed outside without a keeper, can purport to describe this situation without even mentioning the following :

an extreme level of drunkeness approaching lethal toxicity levels;

the extreme obscenity of the loud music;

the proximity of a large number of small children, from the elementary school across the street;

the police-recognized presence of a gun,

would be absolutely amazing if it did not happen so regularly and predictably from the left. The world is not your make-believe fantasy land where what actually happened depends on your fevered imagination - there is accurate information and then there is the crap that you make up out of your own bias, racism, prejudice, and bigotry.

If it occurs to you to wonder why it is that many are beginning to ignore your constant cries of "Racism, Racism, Racism" it is because of crap like this where you constantly make it up where it did not happen.

So here is the thing, I don't believe a word you type. Never have, never will.

You paint the world with a brush that makes you look like you are on the right side of history, yet your logic is laughable at best. AND we all know that if the tables were turned and this had been an avid Trump supporter gunned down in his own home under the exact same circumstances by a black cop... the venomous outrage from your side of the aisle would be endless.

It's high time you and the trumplodytes on here get called out for what you are. You are the right's twisted answer to the SJWs on the left. Instead of defending moral values and trying to right wrongs, you justify them by twisting history to fit the fascists-like bigoted world views of the typical Trump supporter by taking a dump on anything and everything any liberal posts, regardless of being right or wrong, you just have to attack liberals out of fear of losing power.

SDT - Social Dumping Trolls or Social Donald Trumps... same exact meaning. Just taking a big poo poo on american values and history at every turn and justifying it by twisting real american values into sickening Trumpian propaganda!

SDTs would sell their souls to protect Trump and have at every turn justified this lying, thieving, imbecilic russian puppet who is nothing but a con man pretending to be a leader that stole the office of POTUS by colluding with the enemy and attacking our great country from within.

Very soon the light of day will shine down upon SDTs, exposing the slimy treacherous creatures that Jesus Trump has remade in his own image and drive them back into the vile muck of anti-american history were they belong. And I can say this with a promise from all true americans; they will not be missed.

Expected reply.

Ignore the facts, rant about your hatred. You possess colossal chutzpah to complain about my logical process.

There were schoolchildren endangered by a gun in the hands of a drunken idiot clearly intent on causing some sort of problem.

But no, the facts are not important, just your feelings.

Do you not care because the kids were black? Is that it, your own closet racism coming to the forefront?

You are sounding both paranoid and frankly, insane. Have you tried Valium?

I liked your post for both it's witt, snap, and the fact that it was an obviously triggered response to the #Truth and #Reality I exposed you to. Thanks for playing.

You seriously believe you posted truth and reality?

You posted a nonsensical, emotional rant which did not mention a single truth, or reality, and, by totally ignoring ALL of the facts and reality involved in the subject of the thread, Assisted Greatly in proving the point I was attempting to demonstrate.

Thank You, much appreciated.

Dude thinks all Mr. President has done is not screw up O’s economy ... when i point out all the FACTS and TRUTHS u MUST IGNORE to even type that ..

He said I am a LIAR and appearantly that made the FACTS IRRELIVENT ,,,

I believe U may be on to sumptin here about a pattern forming ... ...

0 + 0 = 0 ... i can’t wait for the day they advance to 0 + 1 = 1 ... what a GREAT DAY that will be ...

Not one of the reasons you listed are justification for the police to shoot someone except for possibly the last one if he was pointing it at the police or someone else which I kind of doubt because the gun was found in his back pocket and he was closing the garage door

and lets nt mention the fact he was in his own house and last I checked having a gun in your own house is not illegaland even if it was illegal for hi to have this gun, for whatever reason it is not a basis for himt o be killed by the police .

Where are all the second amendment suporters now.

Oh yeah , the right to have a gun in your own home only applies for certain people

I'm sure the cops felt threatened as the garage door was closing.

One of those things might not be, all four of them certainly are.

The level of intoxication is to the point of being an obligation on the part of a public servant to initiate medical care. That level of drunkenness with a gun is a clear and present danger to public safety. The music, both in volume and obscenity, by itself indicates a state of mind and right across from an elementary school shows a degree of desire to deliberately cause a problem, or just plain crazy. Closing the door would be classed in all jurisdictions as either resisting arrest, or fleeing an officer. Closing the door itself is not a threat, the presence of threat was already clearly established.

Crazy, drunk, and/or stupid with a gun is going to be stopped immediately by any competent public servant, with lots of small children right across the street, any delay or hesitation in eliminating the threat is what is not justifiable.

Many places do in fact have specific laws regarding handling or possessing a firearm while intoxicated, in or out of your house or anybody else's is not a relevant factor. There are laws against this because it is a threat to public safety, removing such threats is what cops are paid for, and choose to do.

Try examining what actually occurred here, instead of just hollering "Racism, Racism, Racism".

Not sure if you were replying to me , but I never said a word about racism. I am dealing with the reported facts of the case, race has zero to do with that, to me anyways .

But how the hell is someone a threat if they are closing their door in their home? Also, is it illegal to answer your door with a gun in your hand?

But I guess the fact that the guy was drinking in his own home and listening to rap music makes him a menace to society and that police are justified in killing him .

What you are implying happened, is NOT repeat NOT what happened. You have to put ALL the facts together.

DRUNK. GUN. SCHOOL. THREAT.

Anybody flapping their yap about this incident while leaving out any of the important facts has some underlying bias or motivation to lie, if you have another explanation that covers all the facts, whip it on me.

IMO, the only logical conclusion about the ignorant yap flappers is that they are a racist putz, or more correctly, several racist putzes. (putzi?)

The $4 award is curious. (vs. zero)

This was decided by a jury of one black man, two white men and five white women.

MY knee-jerk guess is that the defense made a mockery of the trial and insulted the jury.

I can definitely picture a low-life defense attorney mocking the court.

Another possibility is that there's some sort of legal significance to a 1% judgement against the police. (vs. 0%)

In any case, I have complete confidence in this type of jury. As opposed to the type of jury that found O.J. Simpson not-guilty of murder.

JMHO- I'm white, Republican- both of you READ a story and ASSume the story had all the facts/ wanted to share ALL the facts. The dead man had gun, was drunk, was playing "offensive" music near a school. Police shot him thru a garage door and gun found in his rear pocket. I don't think he was an imminent threat, don't think he should have been shot thru the garage door....IF door was up, he pointed a gun at officers and was then shot and killed- I have no questions....but, seems little fishy to me.
Bottomline, drunk, black, gun....not smart. Sorry, the man is dead, but I can sort of understand it- a jury said they had no problem.....next. Lastly, black culture who sings about bitches, hoes, who's your daddy, grab my..on and on and on....that is making the WORST of humanity popular....sad it has infected our whole culture.

While I can see where that would make a person erratic.. wouldn't it also make them easier to subdue?


What if he was flying a confederate flag and listening to David Allen Coe across the street from an elementary school? Does that also increase his threat level?


As far as we know, the cops had zero reason to believe any of those kids were in danger of anything worse than hearing some obscene words...


In his pocket. Not in his hand.. and nobody, other than the police, said he was reaching for it... why would he reach for it, it wasn't loaded.

And he was closing the garage door, with himself inside.. maybe Devil can weigh in on this.. but if he was essentially voluntarily containing himself inside the house, then why not let him contain himself and try to resolve it peacefully? Why shoot him through the door? They were called there for obscene music, not because they thought this guy was going to harm kids, not because they feared a hostage situation... just loud music.. that's all.

There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail... I fear some cops believe in that premise.. the best tool I have is this gun, therefore it's the first thing I should use to resolve a problem... when in fact, it's the absolute last thing you should go to once all other options have been exhausted..

I sympathize with cops, I understand that sometimes a situation can escalate from first option to last option in a matter of seconds, they don't always have time to theorize about option A and option B, and run a series of "if-then" analysis to figure out the best thing to do and what all of the possible outcomes are..... they have to react... I'm even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that even good cops aren't always going to get it right..... but this man was essentially fleeing, he was retreating into his own home with a gun in his back pocket... let him go, contain him, then resolve the situation......

Easier to subdue, sure, but not once he is out of your reach, like behind a door.

I don't think David Allen Coe has a lot of curse words, but if so, then similar, but see below. The battle flag of the army of northern virginia is not a curse word. These are not at all a factor in the threat level, but instead are an indicator of the mindset and likely behavior. Belligerent would be a good word for it.

AT THE POINT THE POLICE IDENTIFIED THE GUN, which in case anybody missed it was BEFORE the shooting, THAT is when the threat became imminent, to the public at large, to the cops, to the yard full of children.

In his possession, drunk, erratic, and belligerent. In his hand you shoot him right now, in his pocket you pull your piece and shout freeze or hands up or something similar.

Fourth or fifth time, closing that door is resisting arrest or fleeing an officer, voluntary contain my patootie. Do you think the walls of that house were bulletproof?

You are also asking why a drunken idiot did not act in a logical and reasonable fashion? Seriously?

I'll tell you what nobody is asking that they should be asking. The garage door that "started to close." What EXACTLY began that process? He would have had to move, particularly his hand, wouldn't he? Drunk and erratic, unsteady, think that hand came close to the gun? Unless someone else pushed that button.

As usual, there is a lot that is uncertain. BUT, three different articles from three different sources, all in agreement with no discrepancies. I ASSume NOTHING. HOWEVER, I will not leave out essential information in order to slant the story a particular way.

Denying the fact of a clear and present danger, or imminent threat to public safety, is denying reality. The cop had to make a split-second decision, a person who puts his behind on the line for our safety, whose likelihood of getting that behind shot clean off for the rest of us is a lot higher than yours or mine, made that decision based on calculations that most of us simply do not have to make, ever. With a yard full of small children right behind him.

I am not saying that we can not, or should not, question these decisions, but if and when we do, we should use all available information to get an accurate and complete picture of the situation. Leaving out important details, or stating the situation as "the cops shot him, and then they found the gun", is a deliberate fabrication that is not only unfair to the cop, but extremely harmful to those who rely on their protection.

The fabrication, the distortion of reality, is the rampant, inherent element which is making the liberal left so completely off the wall.

Yeah, let's shoot him through his door so he doesn't escape into his own home.

You can't fix stupid. Something I have come to realize over time.

Edit - This is in reference to the previous post, not the subject of the thread.

You keep talking about people ignoring the facts but in reality you are cherry picking the facts that you want to use to frame your argument

Fact is the guy was shot through a garage door, with a gun in his posket, not in his hand, his pocket.

Let me ask you a question, do you feel that if someone is running from the police, that shooting them as they run away is justified?

You do not know where that gun was when, and immediately before, he was shot. You also do not appear to understand what "cherry-picking" means. Explain what fact I have omitted. I will wait while the crickets chirp on that one.

If the running dude is drunk, belligerent, has a gun in his pocket, and is heading for a large crowd of small children, then BOOM! Headshot, as a stray round or through shot would likely clear the children.

If, in a completely different and not even vaguely similar situation, an unarmed person, not wanted for a serious crime, not known to have a gun, not creating a public disturbance, not posing a threat to small children, not drunk to a level that is a legitimate threat to his own health, not being belligerent with police, then no, shooting would not be appropriate.

Just tackle him to the ground and take great care that you do not muss up his hair.

you cherry picked by leaving out the part that he was shot THROUGH a garage door.

Running towards children with a gun? Again HE WAS SHOT THROUGH A GARAGE DOOR!!

SO the gun was in his back pocket, so I guess after he got shot through his garage door he took the gun and put it in his back pocket and THEN went down from the gun shot to his head.

Come on man, I understand you are taken a position and standing with it , but this is ridiculous .