There is a controversial shooting in South Carolina this week after York County deputy, Terrence Knox, shot Bobby Canipe, 70, during a routine traffic stop when Canipe reached for his cane. Knox said that he thought it was a rifle and his department is calling him justified in the shooting. Canipe (left) is a disabled Vietnam veteran.
The stop was for an expired license tag near the small town of Clover, South Carolina. After pulling over, Canipe got out and reached into this truck bed for his cane. Knox proceeded to fire multiple rounds and hit Canipe once.
York County sheriff’s spokesman Trent Faris has called the shooting “very unfortunate” but added that “[i]t does appear, at this time, that Deputy Knox’s actions were an appropriate response to what he reasonably believed to be an imminent threat to his life.”
Well, at this time, I would have to disagree. It would appear that an officer fired without a clear view of the alleged weapon or time for the suspect to drop the weapon. Moreover, I assume that, when reaching for a cane, you do show with one hand — an awkward position to use a long-barreled rifle. However, I would like to read the officer’s account and see the results of the investigation.
The matter will be investigated and I would have preferred that the department not issue such a statement before the full facts are determined.
Such shootings raise comparisons with other countries where police use potentially lethal force at a much lower rate.
Source: Washington Post
When only cops have guns then only outlaws will have guns.
Cops are sure a jittery lot. Must be the Caffeine. Probably related to the pressure from Homeland Security and time served in the Military. Either way we need to switch them to Sanka.
Silat:
And how many of those shot by the police were committing aggravated assaults or murder attempts against the police or others?
For Darren:
2013 33 cops killed by gunfire.
2013 cops killed over 300 civilians.
Cops Kill 8 Times More Americans Than Terrorists Do
In the last decade the number of people killed by police in the USA has reached 5,000. The number of soldiers killed since the inception of the Iraq war, 4489.
How many of the 33 slain officers were shot by fellow officers or by their own hand?
Are we living in a police state?
Appreciate it David. When time permits I am going to write a full article on Officer Involved Shootings that will provide further information. I am a bit backlogged on some things for the moment.
Well, reading the comments here, one can become frustrated and angry. Like this nonsense:
“We shouldn’t be rushing to judgment totalitarian;
and we can’t expect police to take extra risk of life to satisfy our angst.”
That is exactly what police officers should be expected to do. The reason why they can get a starting salary of $65k with a High School diploma for sitting in their pimped out cruisers all day is because the job is supposedly dangerous. Well, not as dangerous as being a logging worker, or a fisherman, or a pilot, or a roofer, or a garbage collector, but supposedly ohhhhhhh so dangerous. Someone pointed out in the comments above that one officer even got killed during a traffic stop many years ago. And that is now the reason cops should be allowed to gun down citizen because they got out of their vehicle? You are all going insane, and you are taking this republic down with you. Totalitarianism is a disease that kills off civil society slowly, and let me tell you that what we need in this country is more people insulting each other and pointing out to each other that this land of ours is going to shit and turning into a goddamn banana republic. In 20 years this country will be like Mexico, and not due to immigration, but because people forget what the rule of law is supposed to be. Police officers should be punished twice as hard as an ordinary citizen for any infraction, because they are being paid to uphold the law. Instead they have total immunity, which is a recipe for disaster.
What Professor Turley said! 🙂
Svoogle, you are in clear violation of the civility rule for this blog and I ask that you read it above. We try not to ban commentators on the basis of our commitment to free speech. However, this is a place for civil and mature discussion. There are a wide variety of sites that have and even welcome uncivil comments. This is not one of them. You are invited to stay and join the discussion but I have to ask you to comply. In the meantime, I am deleting your comments.
Svoogle
I believe your remarks are in extreme bad taste and consideration.
We can disagree like adults;
but never are such anon tosser of insults.
okay – or you can just email me at laser (dot) haas (at) yah
If you want to talk about it…. OS can given you my email…
WASHINGTON—Victims of R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme can sue law firms and other third parties on allegations they aided the fraud, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The court, in a 7-2 ruling written by Justice Stephen Breyer, said the victims’ class-action lawsuits were allowed even though a 1998 federal law largely prohibits state-law class-action claims for securities fraud. The ruling gives Stanford victims a chance to recover more of their losses. But it likely doesn’t open the floodgates for a wave of securities litigation since the holding is limited to products sometimes sold in Ponzi schemes that aren’t considered securities.
The court in a 19-page opinion underscored it wasn’t making changes to the federal law. Instead, it said the law’s text leaves room for investors to take legal action when they are deceived with bogus private offerings like Mr. Stanford’s. The ruling “will permit victims of this (and similar) frauds to recover damages under state law,” Justice Breyer wrote.
Mr. Stanford is serving a 110-year prison sentence after being convicted in 2012 of defrauding investors on a grand scale. U.S. authorities alleged Mr. Stanford sold investors bogus certificates of deposit in his Antigua-based bank, using new CD proceeds to pay other customers and funnel money into his own businesses.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579406962894463586?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304709904579406962894463586.html
LD,
It’s the last court of true equity…. See the recent state of Texas decision on R Allen Stanford…… Pretty amazing decision….
AY
Nope – but I’m in WAY over my head.
Took instruction from things like Jenner Block’s RICO, the Chevron case, David Weber’s (successful) complaint against SEC. And then there were many warning if you don’t plead “enough” – the court will deny the points as not being “plead” sufficiently.
So my original was 120 and I forgot to put in Claims/Counts properly.
My first amended (prior to service) was 150 with the Claims/Counts.
The “Request” to put in 2nd Amended was denied (and the court warned me my first Amended and my Second were too verbose and needed to be concise.
Even though I’m permit a “matter or course” amended Complaint after I serve the parties, the Clerk insists I must seek the courts permission by Motion.
I’m now instructed (properly) to allege (ONLY) and save proving the points for later. So my new effort is less than 30 pages.
Hopefully, I can go foward.
LD,
You surprised…..
Hey AY, Defendants in Haas v Romney are responding that they will seek dismissal (as if I didn’t know).
Well this time Able one….. Took years before the score between Cane and Abel got settled….
The unrealistic and eristic davidM wonders why the cops simply can’t take cover. And what, talk it out? Police don’t take cover when someone pulls a gun for similar reasons why firemen don’t stand around a burning building and yell for the people inside to come to a window.
This isn’t a case of an overly aggressive, trigger-happy cop; the guy had no business getting out of his car during a traffic stop.
Exiting the vehicle was a red flag warning sign; it’s an indication of aggressive behavior and attitude. The officer probably started ordering him back into his vehicle the moment he opened his door. Ignoring warnings and reaching into the bed of his truck left the officer with little choice.
The procedure of remaining in the vehicle during a traffic stop until ordered out of it is not only common knowledge, it’s common sense. It’s unfortunate, but this guy should have known the risks he was taking when he got out of his car.