Nashville officer charged in shooting

[Erik88]

I thought we had a thread on this but I didn't see anything when I searched. Feel free to merge if someone finds it.

I don't understand this one. I thought the video made it look like a justified use of force. The fact that he was running away doesn't mean much to me as it only takes a fraction of a second to turn around and shoot the officer. I wonder if they know something that hasn't been released. 

Thoughts?

"A Nashville police officer caught on video shooting a man in the back as he ran away has been charged with criminal homicide.

Officer Andrew Delke was charged Thursday in connection with the July 26 shooting death of Daniel Hambrick, 25, according to an arrest warrant obtained by CNN. Delke's attorney said he plans to plead not guilty.

Surveillance footage released last month by the Nashville District Attorney's Office shows Delke, 25, who is white, chasing Hambrick, who is black, until the officer aims his gun. Hambrick falls to the ground within seconds.

Delke said he saw Hambrick holding a gun and asked him to drop it as both men were running, the warrant states, adding that Delke said Hambrick did not drop his weapon. Authorities recovered a handgun from the scene, they have said."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/us/daniel-hambrick-nashville-police-shooting/index.html

[GlockSpock]

How appropriate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

[Omega]

Just now, GlockSpock said:

How appropriate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

That does not apply here IMO, he was not shot due to fleeing, he was shot because he did not drop his weapon when told to and presented a clear and present danger to the officer and society at large.

[GlockSpock]

1 minute ago, Omega said:

That does not apply here IMO, he was not shot due to fleeing, he was shot because he did not drop his weapon when told to and presented a clear and present danger to the officer and society at large.

Really?

the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Edited September 28, 2018 by GlockSpock

[Chucktshoes]

It may not mean much to you, Erik, but legally I believe it holds great weight. Hambrick did have a gun and he did run from the police, but as far as I can tell, he never raised it or acted in a threatening manner with it. He was also not directly suspected of having done something illegal with it like having just committed robbery. I think this case will hinge on the fact that Hambrick never threatened the officer or others and was only attempting to flee. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Chucktshoes

[Omega]

Just now, GlockSpock said:

Really?

the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Umm, yea I just said the same thing.

[Erik88]

1 minute ago, GlockSpock said:

Really?

the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

In the video it appears he has a gun in his hand as he runs. They said a weapon was recovered, 9mm Beretta. Wouldn't that present a significant threat? 

[Omega]

Just now, Chucktshoes said:

It may not mean much to you, but legally I believe it holds great weight. Hambrick did have a gun and he did run from the police, but as far as I can tell, he never raised it or acted in a threatening manner with it. He was also not directly suspected of having done something illegal with it like having just committed robbery. I think this case will hinge on the fact that Hambrick never threatened the officer or others and was only attempting to flee. 

There is nothing, even in the video, to contradict the officers statement.  So if he indeed turned, with the gun, it could have been seen as a threat.

[GlockSpock]

1 minute ago, Omega said:

Umm, yea I just said the same thing.

Exactly! You said it didn't apply here, but then you reasoned the exact same as TN vs. Garner, otherwise known as the "Fleeing Felon Rule". 

That thing I posted in a synopsis of that case.

[Erik88]

5 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

It may not mean much to you, Erik, but legally I believe it holds great weight. Hambrick did have a gun and he did run from the police, but as far as I can tell, he never raised it or acted in a threatening manner with it. He was also not directly suspected of having done something illegal with it like having just committed robbery. I think this case will hinge on the fact that Hambrick never threatened the officer or others and was only attempting to flee. 

You and I typically agree on these matters but I'm not just seeing it here. Again, maybe they know something that hasn't been presented to the public. All it takes is one second to turn around and fire on the officer. If he just wanted to get away, why not drop the gun? 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Erik88
words

[GlockSpock]

3 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

In the video it appears he has a gun in his hand as he runs. They said a weapon was recovered, 9mm Beretta. Wouldn't that present a significant threat? 

Yes, that's why I posted it.

[Omega]

1 minute ago, GlockSpock said:

Exactly! You said it didn't apply here, but then you reasoned the exact same as TN vs. Garner, otherwise known as the "Fleeing Felon Rule". 

That thing I posted in a synopsis of that case.

In that decision, they stated a police officer may not shoot a fleeing perp to apprehend him (ruled against the police force).  In this case, he was not shot to apprehend him, he was shot because he presented a danger to the officer.

[GlockSpock]

Because the alternative outcome to this COULD have been that the cops let the guy get away, and then later he robbed and murdered the officer's Uncle Ben. Or whomever.

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, Omega said:

There is nothing, even in the video, to contradict the officers statement.  So if he indeed turned, with the gun, it could have been seen as a threat.

I don’t see anywhere where the officer made that claim. Only that he didn’t drop the gun when instructed to do so. 

1 minute ago, Erik88 said:

You and I typically agree on these matters but I'm not just seeing it here. Again, maybe they know something that hasn't been presented to the public. All it takes is one second to turn around and fire on the officer. He if just wanted to get away, why not drop the gun? 

What Hambrick could do doesn’t hold the same weight as what he did (or didn’t) do. That’s my point. I’m not saying one way or another whether or not the officer was justified. I’m pointing out where the case will hinge on for deciding that and how TN V Garner is applied. 

[GlockSpock]

2 minutes ago, Omega said:

In that decision, they stated a police officer may not shoot a fleeing perp to apprehend him (ruled against the police force).  In this case, he was not shot to apprehend him, he was shot because he presented a danger to the officer.

I'm pretty sure apprehending him indeed did take place. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of others, this shooting is at minimum on the same topic as TN vs Garner. In my very short opinion, based on the five minutes of knowledge I have regarding this case, it fits the defined clause of "unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others", which makes TN vs Garner relevant in this conversation.

Disagree if you want, it really isn't a big deal to me.

[Erik88]

1 minute ago, GlockSpock said:

I'm pretty sure apprehending him indeed did take place. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of others, this shooting is at minimum on the same topic as TN vs Garner. In my very short opinion, based on the five minutes of knowledge I have regarding this case, it fits the defined clause of "unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others", which makes TN vs Garner relevant in this conversation.

Disagree if you want, it really isn't a big deal to me.

I can't tell if you are disagreeing with the officers choice or agreeing. The part you highlighted in bold seems to indicate he had reasonable reason to fire.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't understand what you're actually saying? Can you clarify please. 

[GlockSpock]

7 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I can't tell if you are disagreeing with the officers choice or agreeing. The part you highlighted in bold seems to indicate he had reasonable reason to fire.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't understand what you're actually saying? Can you clarify please. 

I would have a difficult time, if on a jury, convicting the officer based on the facts I have read up until this point. I was merely arguing the point that @Omega argues that TN vs. Garner does not apply here. I think it does. 

[MacGyver]

This shooting has been getting a lot of attention in Nashville - especially after the Jocques Clemmons shooting the year before.

The particulars of this case seem to stem from how they stopped the car in the first place.  

Grand juries almost never indict an officer - so that in and of itself makes this significant.

[Erik88]

Just now, MacGyver said:

The particulars of this case seem to stem from how they stopped the car in the first place.  

I was just reading that. It was a BS stop. They had the wrong guy and no reason to even interact with him. I'm guessing he was not legally armed which is why he ran. I suppose one could argue that if we had constitutional carry, he wouldn't need to. It's a crappy situation all around but I still think he shouldn't have run with the gun in his hand. That was a grave mistake. 

[Omega]

3 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

This shooting has been getting a lot of attention in Nashville - especially after the Jocques Clemmons shooting the year before.

The particulars of this case seem to stem from how they stopped the car in the first place.  

Grand juries almost never indict an officer - so that in and of itself makes this significant.

I think it's due to all the media attention and BLM movement instead of the actual facts of the case. 

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I was just reading that. It was a BS stop. They had the wrong guy and no reason to even interact with him. I'm guessing he was not legally armed which is why he ran. I suppose one could argue that if we had constitutional carry, he wouldn't need to. It's a crappy situation all around but I still think he shouldn't have run with the gun in his hand. That was a grave mistake. 

Oh, absolutely it was literally a lethal mistake. That’s the question, isn’t it? Was that mistake justifiably lethal?

[GlockSpock]

I suppose I fall into the camp that recognizes the place to fight officers is the courtroom, not on the streets. You make your absolute best attempt to follow the orders of an officer. Generally, it is always a bad idea to run away from the police while holding a gun. It doesn't matter if it is a "good stop" or a "bad stop", you just do what they say. If they were wrong for pulling you over and arresting you, prove that in the courtroom. Running away from them, while brandishing a firearm, has zero positive outcomes.

That's my opinion.

[Omega]

8 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I was just reading that. It was a BS stop. They had the wrong guy and no reason to even interact with him. I'm guessing he was not legally armed which is why he ran. I suppose one could argue that if we had constitutional carry, he wouldn't need to. It's a crappy situation all around but I still think he shouldn't have run with the gun in his hand. That was a grave mistake. 

I think he was a felon, so constitutional carry would not apply, unless they had restored his rights.

https://fox17.com/news/local/man-shot-killed-by-metro-police-has-lengthy-criminal-history

Quote

 

According to records, here is Hambrick's criminal history:

• 6/26/2009 - Convicted of felony aggravated robbery
• 6/27/2009 - Convicted of aggravated robbery
• 8/11/2009 - Indicted for felony aggravated robbery
• 2/10/2010 - Convicted of misdemeanor assault
• 2/22/2013 - Convicted of possession or casual exchange
• 10/26/2013 - Convicted of misdemeanor alternate ID number
• 10/27/2013 - Convicted of weapon possession, felon in possession of a weapon
• 11/7/2013 - Convicted of drugs in a drug-free school zone, resisting arrest, use of drug paraphernalia, criminal impersonation, possession with intent to deliver
• 11/23/2015 - Convicted of possession or casual exchange
• 12/21/2016 - Convicted of drugs in a drug-free school zone, resisting arrest, drugs, felon in possession of a weapon, evading arrest, possession with intent to deliver
• 12-/21/2017 - Convicted of being a felon in possession of a weapon with intent

 

While the stop may have been a mistake, the shooting could have been avoided had he dropped his weapon.  Many people get pulled over due to mistaken identity or because they are in a similar vehicle on a BOLO.  But even then, once pulled over they can be charged if there is any probable cause, such as an odor of marijuana or alcohol, in which case the reason for the original stop becomes a moot point.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Omega
speeling

[Erik88]

3 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Oh, absolutely it was literally a lethal mistake. That’s the question, isn’t it? Was that mistake justifiably lethal?

There has to be more that we don't know. The video even backs up the officers claim that he was armed. I can't imagine a jury convicting. Now, perhaps the officer should be reprimanded for the fact that he made a stop or attempted to stop someone that had done absolutely wrong up until that point. 

[Erik88]

3 minutes ago, Omega said:

I think he was a felon, so constitutional carry would not apply, unless they had restored his rights.

https://fox17.com/news/local/man-shot-killed-by-metro-police-has-lengthy-criminal-history

While the stop may have been a mistake, the shooting could have been avoided had he dropped his weapon.  Many people get pulled over due to mistaken identity or because they are in a similar vehicle on a BOLO.  But even then, once pulled over they can be charged if there is any probable cause, such as an odor of marijuana or alcohol, in which case the reason for the original stop becomes a moot point.

How was he even out on the streets? I thought felon in possession of a firearm carried a 10 year sentence typically. Then he did it again.