From reading the article on Crump's press conference, they are doing an independent autopsy, and somewhat of an independent investigation. The motivating factor being that they dont trust the cops, including the autopsy. If you want a logical reason why a community would feel/act that way, look at the posts in this thread about the Senatobia shooting. Cops shoot the toddler of an unarmed shoplifting couple, and have already declared it the mom's fault, no complaint with the cops.
Nolan Wells death on Horn Island..
- Thread starter LOTRGOTDAWGFAN
- Start date
- Status
I worked at a mortuary for several years in my late teens and early 20s.
There’s no grief like that of a parent who lost a child. The range of raw emotions is incredible. I’ve seen reactions range. catatonic shock to temporary insanity. All deal with it in different ways - I feel for all of them. Grieving parents need grace.
I don’t have nightmares, but the memories of child funerals are still vivid and fresh in my mind 30 years later.
That’s a scumbag sympathizer of racist shite that y’all let fester
scum that think there is nothing wrong with what he said
When you try to run over someone with a car, you've escalated the situation to deadly force. It's a justified shoot. Unfortunately for the baby, his mother decided to hold him up as a human shield.
This whole situation, senatobia and the coast all the way back to oj Simpson is why the trial by jury system in the country is not workable. People can't even get pasted their own biases to see the facts.
A person behind the wheel of a moving vehicle is not unarmed.
Horseshit. Charge them with deadly force, sure, but there is NO legitimate reason to FIRE on that vehicle in that situation. The officer is much better served to protect his own life by moving out of the way. The public is not made safer by harming the driver. That the cops and so many citizens think its justified force is exactly why people like Ben Crump and Al Sharpton exist.
Fair point, but its clearly not the same as a situation where a perp has a gun.
It won’t matter. The crowd that is in an uproar will stay in an uproar. There is nothing that could be produced that would classify as sufficient evidence for that crowd.
Those boys might not have seen color before but I guarantee they do know. I saw a picture on Facebook earlier today that called all 3 of those boys murders. What I’ve learned from this situation is if you’re white and have a black friend and something happens to that black friend… watch out.
Wrong. Run over someone with a car = deadly force
point a gun at someone = deadly force
good shoot that is supported by case law.
Killer arrested. I don't like saying this, but it's true. Sharpton and Crump aren't in Tupelo because this was a black on black crime. There's nothing for them to gain there. They don't seem interested in changing the culture that makes the murder rate what It is in the U.S..
I would like to hear JackReacherDawg's take on this.
The families crawfished off social media for good reason, I was seeing "well, thats Mississippi for you" within hours of the first news splash on social media. Any adult in those families would be experienced enough to see what was lining up.
This is too dumb to even reply to.
You're making my point for me, and you dont even realize it.
There’s the door. Use it and leave if it’s so terrible.
all of us do this as volunteers and it’s not our job to police the message board 24/7.
It was taken care of yet you’re still here crying about it.
If you don’t like it, start your own 17ing message board.
I suggest, in both cases, we let things play out and see what actually happened before taking sides. My biggest complaint is the automatic demonizing of that cop, and the automatic demonizing of Nolan Wells' white friends. That's the problem.
You weren't in that Walmart parking lot. But you've damn sure made up your mind, haven't you? There are absolutely situations where a cop should fire toward the driver of a car. We can argue all day about that, but what we CAN'T argue about, is if the mom hadn't shoplifted, and if she also had complied instead of driving, then the kid would be alive.
Exactly. If my son wants to hang out with a black friend, I can’t let him. These guys are just evil.
Thats not the point. If a perp has a gun, theres a justification that shooting protects the life of the officer. But if the perp just has a car, shooting the driver does nothing to make the officer safer. He is much better served to focus on getting out of the way. In that situation, shooting just serves to prevent the perp from getting away.
The story is they were driving the car at the officers. They didn’t just drive off and he shot at them.
Again that’s why I want MDI to hurry up and release the details.
You don't understand the law. Here is some reading for you.....
- Cordova v. Aragon (10th Cir. 2009): The Tenth Circuit affirmed that deadly force is a permissible response when a fleeing driver deliberately uses their car as a weapon to try to ram or hit officers and bystanders. [1]
- Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014): The Supreme Court upheld the use of deadly force (including firing multiple rounds) into a vehicle, determining that doing so was reasonable to stop a reckless driver whose actions presented a grave, immediate threat to public safety. [1]
My biggest complaint is the widespread belief that shooting a driver is presumed justified force to protect the officer. It makes no sense.
I would love to hear these absolute situations where a cop should fire toward a driver.
Agreed, the mom is a POS and got her kid killed. She has major culpability here. But that doesnt justify a bad shoot either.
The higher level point here being, some communities can look and see that we even have to argue this, and understand much better than you do that we haven't gotten as better on justice for their community as you'd like to tell yourself.
And there's other stories that they weren't. Supposedly (per Crump so take that FWIW), the kill shot came from the passenger side.
Regardless, it doesnt change the fact that shooting the driver doesnt protect anyone, it only serves to keep them from getting away. Im actually somewhat surprised that I even have to argue that. I thought it was common sense.
Im aware. Plumhoff involved a high speed chase, so not relevant.
But anyway, that there is case law that exists that supports such a cockamamie justification for a shoot is part of the problem as relates to why certain communities dont currently trust the police.
To clarify, I am open to not prosecuting such a shoot based on a cop making a split second decision when their life has been endangered. What I am clearly objecting to is calling it a good shoot. Its a textbook bad shoot.
AI result:
Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer's use of deadly force against a driver is evaluated for objective reasonableness based on the totality of the circumstances, as established in Graham v. Connor. Courts analyze specific scenarios regarding a vehicle fleeing or driving towards officers: [1, 2, 3]
- Driver Escaping / Driving Away: Under Tennessee v. Garner, deadly force cannot be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Therefore, shooting a merely fleeing driver who does not otherwise endanger the public violates the Constitution. However, in Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Supreme Court ruled officers were justified in using deadly force to end a dangerous high-speed chase where the suspect's reckless driving seriously endangered the public. [1, 2, 3]
- Driver Charging / Driving at Officers: If a driver uses a vehicle as a weapon to drive directly at an officer or others, it generally creates an immediate threat of death or serious harm, justifying the use of deadly force. In Barnes v. Felix, the Supreme Court rejected a lower court's restricted "moment-of-threat" doctrine, ruling that in excessive force cases, courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances and events leading up to the shooting to determine if the officer's actions were reasonable. [1, 2]
Last edited:
You can't legislate a split second situation like that. I prefer safety. The mother created an unsafe situation that day, and bad stuff happened due to it. You cannot blame a cop for that, and truth be known, I think your point of view makes no sense. I mean how do we even know that the cop wasn't aiming at the tires? Do you want him to go line by line through his checklist when a car is flying around a parking lot? It's not even completely about if the cop gets hit, what about everybody else?
So honestly, when we're at this stalemate, I really do not understand how we move forward as a society. Granting police a level of authority is a basic tenet of safety in a civil society and those people that want to destabilize that? I have no words, I have no understanding. Comply with the police - IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
Did you drop your tampon in sand before insertion or something?
Good thing you aren't a cop who has to make those decisions. I've been hit by a truck before that was only going about 10mph in a parking lot and it still knocked me off my feet and my head bounced on the sidewalk; luckily I have a hard head.
If the car is heading right at you as an officer you have every right to fire at the car.
LIKE I SAID, I’m waiting on the investigation details. Maybe it was a bad shoot, maybe it wasn’t. We have no idea at this point. There’s multiple stories so taking one as gospel is wreckless at this point.
Absolutely. I would want him to prioritize his safety. And he would do that by getting the hell out of the way.
Would you feel the same if it was your toddler shot just so a shoplifter didn't get away?
ETA: would you feel ok about it if your son was killed by a bad shoot by a cop, and you found out he had a history of it and it was just swept under the rug?
Last edited:
You have the right to reasonable use of force. Whether it was reasonable or not may ultimately be up to a jury.
Im not condemning this cop, im speaking in general, so I dont know why you keep bringing up waiting on the details.
We legislate/prosecute split second decisions all the time. Not prosecuting is a decision too.
And theres a difference between prosecuting, and saying we're not prosecuting this but it was clearly a bad shoot so maybe you shouldn't be put back into this position again.
Irrelevant. Letting cops make bad shoots willy nilly is not siding with safety.
Whether the mother made bad decisions or not has nothing to do with if it was a bad or good shoot. Thats emotional reasoning, not logical reasoning. If her bad decisions justified it, it would be ok for the cop to shoot her in the back. But maybe thats what youll defend next?
The standing precedent that use of force must be reasonable and not just be used to prevent escape is a position you feel makes no sense?
That would be an even dumber thing for him to do. And if he was shooting at tires and hit occupants, also a good reason to label it a bad shoot and maybe not put him back out there. Right?
If he has no time to assess the situation, maybe defer to not shooting?
I dont either. My logic cant address your emotions.
If only it were that simple.
- Status