Nashville officer charged in shooting

[Omega]

2 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

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. 

Soft judges!

[chances R]

He was such a good boy.  Turned his life around (while illegally carrying a gun).  Multiple felony history.  Failure to obey an officer.  A danger to the public and the officer.  Guilt of conscience...that is why he ran.  IMO no relation to the Garner case.  Justifiable shoot.  Just do what you are told by the police, especially if you are holding a gun.

[DaveTN]

I can’t tell much from the video so I’ll rely on the media reports.

The suspect made the choice to run. He made the choice to have a gun in his hand. It is reasonable that any person, Police Officer, or citizen, pursuing an armed person that is not dropping the weapon; intends on using it. As soon as he gets to a position of cover it’s reasonable to believe he will engage the person chasing him.

When I was a cop we shot fleeing forcible felons. Home Invaders, Burglars, Rapists, Armed Robbers are absolutely a danger to the public. The fact that they can out run a cop shouldn’t mean they get to have more victims. Tennessee V. Garner stopped that and its needs to be overturned.

We have seen too many cases where there was a public outcry because a Police Officer or armed citizen shot a career criminal because they believed that criminal was threatening their life.  

If you want to handcuff the cops; go ahead. You will have the same situation you now have in Chicago. Also you as an HCP holder will he held to the same standards. If you shoot an armed robber as he is turning to run; you will be charged. That’s wrong. So be careful; be very careful.

Criminals that have guns in their hands and are not following the orders of the Police; will get shot. I have no idea why they decided to charge this Officer so I must assume its politics. (I'll wait to hear why) That’s what happened in Chicago. I don’t think most of us want that here.

I’ll also echo the concerns of others; why wasn’t this criminal in jail? It kind of looks like if the DA or Judges had done their job this career criminal would be alive in prison, and a cop wouldn’t be headed to trial.

Quote

 

Dissent

In her dissent, Justice O'Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and argued that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case. Moreover, many cases of rape, robbery, and assault that happen in the home are related to the already serious crime of burglary. The Tennessee statute represents the state legislature's judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect's interest in his own life necessarily allows the right to flee from the scene of a crime when pursued, thereby escaping due process, although the majority did not find nor articulate any "right to flee."

 

 

[Chucktshoes]

12 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

 

I’ll also echo the concerns of others; why wasn’t this criminal in jail? It kind of looks like if the DA or Judges had done their job this career criminal would be alive in prison, and a cop wouldn’t be headed to trial.

 

I will absolutely agree with this view right here. If that listed criminal history is correct, he should’v still been in jail. 

[btq96r]

2 hours 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? 

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

[bud]

.

Edited January 20, 2019 by bud

[Omega]

11 hours ago, btq96r said:

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

If he was legal, I highly doubt this situation would of happened, first off, there would have been no pursuit, no gun in hand, so I don't see this particular case as an escalading issue. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Omega
syntax

[DaveTN]

33 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

There is nothing that assumes anything as a “significant threat” that justifies the use of deadly force (Short of being shot at, and some have even questioned that). Each and every incident is different and has to be articulated by the shooter, whether it be a cop or private citizen.

Glen Funk has stated that he will try this case without presenting it to a Grand Jury to be transparent. Now in my opinion that’s not about transparency, if he had a case he could get an indictment. It appears to me he doesn’t think he can get an indictment; so he’ll skip it. He and the Mayor want to pacify the protesters instead of doing their job. But that’s just my opinion based on the news stories.

Edited September 28, 2018 by DaveTN

[GlockSpock]

30 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

That is, to an extent, a topic of conversation. But I think the concept of relevance and circumstance are everything here. I even see what you are saying, I think. 

Consider this difference between an officer approaching an individual whom:

A: Is walking around his own property while holding a firearm. Upon being approached by the officer, puts away his firearm while greeting the officer in a friendly manner.

B: Is pulled over for a suspected crime. Instead of addressing and answering the officers concerns, chooses to flee while brandishing the firearm.

Surely you can see the difference in being armed and being armed. Which one is a logical "significant thread"? 

I personally believe that anyone not incarcerated over the age of 18 should be able to possess a firearm. That includes people who have committed crimes in the past. That is my opinion, and I suspect many here will disagree with it. But even if something is legal, if I show up to your house, holding a firearm in my hand, and you don't even know who I am, shouldn't that cause you some concern? Wouldn't you consider me a significant threat, since I am literally holding my handgun in my hand for seemingly no valid reason other than showing you I'm armed, or worse?

What if when you approach me and confront me about it, instead of saying "Oh, I'm GlockSpock, I brought you this gun to see if you wanted to buy it", I chose to dart off in the other direction towards your neighbors house while waving the gun around while running? Wouldn't you be concerned for your neighbors safety?

 

[bersaguy]

If I am not mistaken this is the case where the DA had to go judge shopping to find a judge that would sign an arrest warrant and I think they said it took 4 judges before he could find one that would sign it. That would be a pretty good indication getting a conviction of the officer would seem like slim to none.....JMHO

[Pain103]

 The video made me cringe and I wouldn’t be suprised if he is convicted of a lesser offense. The worst part of this is the actions by the DA. Any case in the past would be presented to the grand jury where only the prosecutors and investigators can attend to present evidence and answer questions. The old saying is the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, so the rumor is either the  DA didn’t like the current grand jury or he is getting some good PR from the groups.   

 

 He the made them go to a general sessions judge to sign the warrant after a magistrate refused. In Davidson County the system doesn’t work like that. Judges only typically issue bench warrants or maybe probation warrants. Its odd they didn’t follow the system. Also they made the DA investigator swear out the warrant and scratched out the TBI agent’s name and still used his probable cause affidavit. 

[Omega]

It's political, the voting base wanted an arrest at any cost.  When the video was released, no mention of the gun in his hand, but I think they said one was found afterwards.  So from the get go they were trying to railroad the officer.  I was leaning towards the perp's side of things until the police union weighed in with all the facts. His record shows he should have been in prison, if anyone is to blame, it's the ones that had him on the streets.  His record, IMO, should not be considered unless the officer knew who he was pursuing, but it does show he had a reason to run and possibly use the gun to keep from getting arrested.  And now with the rest of the shenanigans to affect an arrest, I am definitely leaning towards the cops side on this.

[bud]

.

Edited January 20, 2019 by bud

[Pain103]

 If you know any Metro guys ask about the new rules handed down. They have been instructed to essentially be less proactive.  With the crazy spending and rise in violent crime Nashville will be a gem. 

[bud]

.

Edited January 20, 2019 by bud

[Omega]

20 minutes ago, bud said:

Will do. Was glad to hear mnpd officers packed the courtroom today.

Sounds like things are looking up for Delke.

Yea, heard one news story say the non zoomed out tape shows the gun in the perps hand while running.  Unfortunately, no matter which way this goes, he is probably not coming back to the force.

[DaveTN]

I’m a little confused on what’s going on here. I keep seeing in media reports that the Judge will decide if there is enough to send this to a grand jury. I thought the DA had chosen to skip the Grand Jury and this was a preliminary hearing??

 

[bud]

.

Edited January 20, 2019 by bud

[gregintenn]

If people would only act like they had some sense, we wouldn't need police and judges. Sadly, this will never be the case. I don't like criminals, and am not fond of police or judges either. I only wish they'd all leave me alone.

[TGO David]

So, Judge Blackburn recommended that the Delke case go to the Grand Jury.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2019/01/07/andrew-delke-ruling-daniel-hambrick-shooting-nashville/2500355002/

 

@bud, my condolences on your loss of $5.  I'm glad I didn't make any bets on this one.

[bud]

.

Edited January 20, 2019 by bud

[Grunt67]

Personally, I thought it was a good shoot. The judges ruling made no sense. Be interesting to see how it plays out before the Grand jury.

[pop pop]

My opinion, the grand jury will send this case to trial.  Bad atmosphere out there in john Q public. 

[bersaguy]

I am betting it goes to a jury trial. That way anyone that does not like the out come what ever it is they can blame the jury. Myself, I believe that any time a felon with a gun is given a direct order from a police officer and breaks and runs he has just broken a number of laws to add to the felon with a gun. That to me gives the officer all means at his disposal to apprehend said felon which the officer did as he was trained to do. He persued said felon yelling orders to stop   running and drop the gun. The felon did not follow any orders and was there fore shot. I would classify what the officer did as Justifible Homicide in the line of duty on the officers part.

Now with that said I doubt that  it will be found to be that way beause  there is a spineless Mayor and DA that is afraid of doing their jobs and they will throw this officer to the Wolves to keep the peace............JMHO  

[Whisper]

Funk is wrong.  The US Supreme Court ruled back in the 1980s (in Tennessee v Garner, a case involving Memphis PD) that a fleeing felon can be stopped with lethal force, although only if there is probable cause to believe there's a threat to the life of the officer or others.  I expect the officer's attorney will  argue that he had probable cause because he could see the suspect was armed.