Comments by "Martin White" (@martinwhite418) on "FOX 13 Seattle" channel.

@scribbles8801 I realize what you, and others on here, are doing. Your reading off of something that was posted on the internet, and thinking you are accurate. I think people like to do research which takes 10 seconds or less. And that is what you have done.
6
@ShadowMcSneaky Just answer this very easy question one time. Give me a situation where an officer is justified in firing a "warning shot". Your doing the same thing other people do in these comments when they don't have an answer, they just say they already answered the question.
4
Am I missing something here or is that officer in big trouble?
3
@scribbles8801 The law does not care about "what you like". That is not how laws are written. If you watched the video, there does not appear to be anyone for the motorcycle to run over, or otherwise injure someone. An officer can not merely shoot someone because they are not nice, there has to be provocation. If you watch the look on the face of the other officer, you will see real surprise on his face.
3
@ShadowMcSneaky There Is no "firing a warning shot". What would firing a warning shot be warning about?
2
@ShadowMcSneaky You can go find an opinion of someone from 1960 that says cigarettes absolutely do not cause cancer. Opinions are not law. I have repeatedly asked you what action by a suspect would dictate that an officer should fire a "warning shot". You have not answered that seemingly simple question.
2
Well he never should have said, no problem, everyone is safe, there is no killer out there that will get you. He was not correct.
2
Yes. I agree, am I just not seeing some provocation for the shooting?
2
@scribbles8801 He was on a motorcycle. You have to pay attention.
2
@ImpendingJoker No, you don't get to borrow from earlier actions to justify shooting someone later.
2
@scribbles8801 Goofy, the motorcycle was doing about 10mph away from the officer. Why do you think the sergeant didn't fire and looked surprised at the other officer firing?
2
He might wind up in prison, unless someone can tell me the provocation for the shooting that I am just not seeing.
1
@squirrelmaster1225 Yes, the officer might be in big trouble here.
1
@Ry I don't know what you mean by "a felon from the beginning."
1
@ShadowMcSneaky a police officer firing a "warning shot" in the U.S., has a good chance of going to prison. You are being vague. A warning shot concerning what? Don't be vague, it's really easy.
1
@ShadowMcSneaky Your quoting from an article by an author. I am talking about laws and courts. Again, real easy question. What event could take place that would provide for a law enforcement officer in the U.S. to fire a "warning shot"?
1
@ShadowMcSneaky Can you just answer the simple question. What event would occur for an officer to fire a "warning" shot?
1
That officer missed the only possible window to shoot the suspect earlier. I think the officer will come to regret not having shot him earlier.
1
@Rush47. Linus, When you copy and paste something stupid that someone on the internet wrote, you run a great risk of looking stupid. Don't look stupid.
1
What a stupid system to charge a company with a felony. Boeing can't be sent to prison.
1
Because some people we were claiming it was relevant. Not hard to understand.
1
@scribbles8801 No.
1
@scribbles8801 Where did you read a determination that supports your statement?
1
@scribbles8801 Great, So we agree. "Garner" directed that an officer can not shoot a fleeing felon who is not currently posing a threat. Great.
1
@riversiderebuilds4677 What does this have to do with the shooting?
1
@scribbles8801 Again, you can't borrow from an earlier incident to attempt to justify a later action. It doesn't work that way silly. It's not a cup of flour that your borrowing from a neighbor in order to make a cake. An officer does not get to say he "borrowed the earlier actions of the suspect in order to later shoot the suspect." Sorry.
1
@scribbles8801 The law does not have any element of predicting the future. Sorry.
1
@scribbles8801 You can't borrow from an earlier incident. Firing on a suspect can only be based on the situation at hand. Go read.
1
@lordallah6514 The deputy might go to prison for this shooting.
1
@lordallah6514 The deputy is going to have a real hard time explaining that shooting.
1
@orcoastgreenman Why is the person who was shot "not around"? What is meant by this statement?
1
@orcoastgreenman The law has no allowances for what "taxpaying citizens" would appreciate. There is no allowance for what the person who was shot could do later in life. There is no provocation for why this deputy shot this suspect.
1
@orcoastgreenman The law on this is very simple. You have to justify, in words, why you choice to shoot. You enjoyed the shooting, but there is no language in the law on this that provides for a shooting to be reasonable for entertainment purposes.
1
@orcoastgreenman What are you talking about? "No longer a part of earthly existence"? What does that mean?
1
@orcoastgreenman Ok, so you just found out he didn't die, which tells me you weren't paying much attention to the story. Everything you just typed, what he did the day before, etc, has nothing to do with the provocation for the deputy to shoot the suspect. "I don't like what you did yesterday so I'm gonna shoot you today" is not a good response for shooting someone.
1
@orcoastgreenman This would be a fairly easy conviction. His Sargeant would have to explain why he didn't fire, and why he had such a shocked look on his face, and the deputy who shot the suspect is stuck with his statement that he shot the suspect because he was "getting away".
1
@joepeltola52 Who are you saying fired first?
1
@orcoastgreenman And again, people thought the 3 murderers from Georgia that killed Ahmaud Arbery would go free. They were all convicted of murder.
1
@aaroncousins4750 Standards of what? Suspects? News producing? What?
1
LongLive Nip A law enforcement officer does not get to borrow being mad from an earlier event in order to justify shooting a suspect later. This is under investigation.
1
@LFCV123 Who are you saying "is no longer around"? What does that mean?
1
Why tell us to walk on lighted paths when nobody was killed on an unlit path? Because they don't want to say "Be careful not to die in your house while sleeping."
1