Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Media CAUGHT LYING About Patrick Lyoya" video.

@memov5867 That isn't correct either. If you think the officer is being abusive or something, you should still submit to arrest and take it to court. Especially since everything is pretty much filmed now, there will be evidence that you can present. All of these scenarios are better than risking your life over a stolen car, traffic ticket, drugs, whatever.
3
@Ahabite Having had guns and knives pointed at me multiple times, my reflex was never to grab it. Wrestling for a weapon never ends well. My reflex was to hold up my hands in a defensive manner and talk them down.
3
@DarkHorseSki You don't have the right to resist arrest. You're right to self defense against an officer is regulated to specific instances like no knock warrants. Once you're aware it's an officer, you see them or they announce, the rights go to the officer and you no longer have self defense. You clearly have no actual idea what the laws are and are just trolling. If you aren't a troll, then you're just an ignorant person who, if people listen to, you'll get them killed. Maybe that's your end game. Getting more people killed. I don't know and don't care. Self defense was, is, and always will be with an officer of the court (police) once the person is aware they are. I think maybe you don't understand that they aren't regular citizens but are officers of the court and as such have different rules and laws applied to them.
2
@Mike_Daddy That case involved, Tennessee v Garner, was a suspecting being shot because he was fleeing and was known to be unarmed. You can't cite a case and ignore what's in it or the facts of the decision. You read that little snippet on wikipedia and didn't bother reading any further. That would not apply here. He was not shot because he was fleeing. He was shot because he armed himself. Tennessee v Garner doesn't apply. Nice try though. Just read the actual details of the case and ruling next time. No court has ever ruled that an officer can't pursue a fleeing suspect because something might, possibly, happen. Edit: An officer is also not required to de-escalate once physical contact has been made. The opposite is true. An officer is allowed to use the next level of force being used against them. Edit 2: In case you comeback with some other nonsense you're attempting to attach to that case that isn't there I'll add a couple of more details. He was climbing a fence, clearly unarmed when shot. Officers had not even gotten close enough to make any physical contact. He technically hadn't even resisted arrest at that point and was only fleeing officers. The decision even partially agreed with the Appeals court which had overturned the original ruling that the officers acted incorrectly.
2
@Mike_Daddy Also see Graham v Connor which reduced the impact of Tennessee v Garner. It established that reasonable use of force, whether against a fleeing suspect or otherwise, is to be determined from the perspective of the officer under the circumstances apparent to them at the time. It basically removed the impact from the case you're trying to make carry a lot of water. Irrelevant really since Tennessee v Garner wouldn't even apply, but Graham v Connor appears to.
2