[QUOTE=1civic;39260361]I could not have said it better myself!!!



A completely law abiding man, on his way home from a legal job, is stopped by police because THEY (no one else) believe he is "suspicious".
The Cop that started it all leaves the area, leaving the man whose RIGHTS he is violating in the cutody of a deputy sheriff, that had ZERO business even being there.

assumption
Now, those are facts, the next is conjecture .... the deputy tells the law abiding citizen, whise rights are being violated, to do something, and it is somthing that the deputy has no LEGAL authority to make the law abiding citizen do ....so the law abiding citizen, who has been unconstitutionally and illegally SEIZED (detained) by the Polioce Officer who is no longer even there refuse to comply with ther NON lawful command of the deputy ....which ticks the deputy off, and he decides to PHYSICALLY make the law abiding citizen comply, by FURTHER violating his rights via a physical assault ......just about that time, a second, and unconcerned/unneeded Police officer shows up, sees the deputy LOSING his illegal assault upon the law abiding citizen, and simply will NOT HAVE THAT, so he shoots the law abiding citizen several times, killing him.
assumptions. Why did the stopping officer leave? why was a second officer called in? what was the results of his background check? what did they order him to do? Why did he resist?

Those are all questions no one has the answer and everyone is GUESSING. They have protocol people, they have to do it by the book. If they didnt, the video tape will show that, so will the dispatch calls. but until you know all that STOP GUESSING.

Based upon the LIMITED info out, it sounds like they stopped him, which FYI they can DETAIN you up to 24 hours with no charges, they can even bring you in for questioning, after they read you your rights to an attorney or if you ask for one.

It sounds like they stopped him for whatever reason, ran his info, saw something questionable or he fit a description, called for backup, asked him to do something, he resisted, they had an argument, got into a scuffle shot and killed him.

I do not think a cop would just say "HEY PUNK IM SHOOTING YOU BECAUSE I CAN". hot head or not. Being a hot head is VERY different then killing someone in cold blood. Plus there are conflicting accounts. 1 account says the guy is a HOT HEAD that SHOT matt who also was in an altercation with him, the second says ANOTHER cop cam on scene saw the scuffle and shot him. so which is it?
In effect, the man dies because the police chose to violate his constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment several times, and because he did not cower sufficiently to their AUTHORITAH !
His 4th amendment rights were not violated. He was stopped, he wasnt searched according to the report, and he wasnt questioned without counsel. They didnt arrest him, 4th amendment doesnt matter. They can stop you for anything. They didnt profile him, and according to the report he wasnt arrested so 4th amendment DOESNT APPLY.

Im sorry but we should wait for the results of the investigation.