[REAL TALK] EJ Bradford Was Shot In The Back 3 Times In Alabama Mall Shooting According To Privat

[Removed Now]

EJ Bradford Was Shot In The Back According To Private Autopsy

The story of Emantic “E.J.” Bradford Jr. is as sad and infuriating as any we’ve ever heard. For those who aren’t aware, we reported previously that Bradford was killed by Hoover police in Birmingham, Alabama on Thanksgiving Day after a fight broke out in the Riverchase Mall. The ever-changing story the police gave to justify the killing went from vague to downright suspect

Well, now, according to NOLA, we see why the cops haven’t been forthright with their assessment of how and why EJ was shot dead. Family lawyer Ben Crump had EJ’s body examined by chief forensic pathologist for the Washington D.C. area Dr. Roger Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell confirmed that EJ was shot 3 times, once in the head, once in the neck, and once in the back, all the bullets entered through his back, which means he was running AWAY from the police who wanted to kill him.

Interesting story, new thoughts?

[BostonGuy]

I've said this before on here - police have to do a better job at training their officers. We live in a heightened state of racial tensions and perception is reality for a lot of folks. There is this notion that blacks are targeted more because of their race - this may or may not be true - however, law enforcement should be studying ways to deescalate conflict and find ways to have better outcomes.

[GhostofDempsey]

If they believed he was the actual shooter, then they are authorized to use deadly force in stopping him, even if he is running away. Same as if someone is using their vehicle as a weapon, even if they drive away after mowing innocent bystanders down, they are now in possession and control of a deadly weapon and can be taken down by any force necessary.

The family is claiming that he was never armed to begin with. If that is true, then the officer who shot him should be arrested and brought up on charges.

It is a very unfortunate situation that this guy had his life taken from him. Whether or not it could have been avoided is another question that remains to be answered. Active shooting incidents are adrenalin-charged scenarios that don't allow officers the luxury of time to react. I'm sure in the next coming days/weeks we'll discover more about the incident and there will be a determination made.

[j.razor]

I have a solution. Make more than half of the police black men.

[The Big Dunn]

I've said this before on here - police have to do a better job at training their officers. We live in a heightened state of racial tensions and perception is reality for a lot of folks. There is this notion that blacks are targeted more because of their race - this may or may not be true - however, law enforcement should be studying ways to deescalate conflict and find ways to have better outcomes.

You make good points but he was shot in the back 3 times BG. Officers shouldn't need training on how not to shoot a fleeing suspect multiple times above the waist.Instead of training we need prosecuting for attempted murder. That will be far more effective in lowering these types of shootings.

[siablo14]

I've said this before on here - police have to do a better job at training their officers. We live in a heightened state of racial tensions and perception is reality for a lot of folks. There is this notion that blacks are targeted more because of their race - this may or may not be true - however, law enforcement should be studying ways to deescalate conflict and find ways to have better outcomes.

Nah, b**tch.

You have been saying "but Chicago."

[siablo14]

You make good points but he was shot in the back 3 times BG. Officers shouldn't need training on how not to shoot a fleeing suspect multiple times above the waist.Instead of training we need prosecuting for attempted murder. That will be far more effective in lowering these types of shootings.

I hope he gets charged with murder like the female cop in Texas.

[siablo14]

If they believed he was the actual shooter, then they are authorized to use deadly force in stopping him, even if he is running away. Same as if someone is using their vehicle as a weapon, even if they drive away after mowing innocent bystanders down, they are now in possession and control of a deadly weapon and can be taken down by any force necessary.

The family is claiming that he was never armed to begin with. If that is true, then the officer who shot him should be arrested and brought up on charges.

It is a very unfortunate situation that this guy had his life taken from him. Whether or not it could have been avoided is another question that remains to be answered. Active shooting incidents are adrenalin-charged scenarios that don't allow officers the luxury of time to react. I'm sure in the next coming days/weeks we'll discover more about the incident and there will be a determination made.

Red - Thats true so I won't be shocked if the grand jury doesn't charge the cop.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, previously told Dara Lind for Vox. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger said, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, “they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight.”

The key to both of the legal standards — defense of life and fleeing a violent felony — is that it doesn’t matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer’s “objectively reasonable” belief that there is a threat.

https://www.vox.com/iden******/2018/...ooting-alabama
So the cop's defense team will use the above precedent to get off.

But as expected they will lose the civil case and the family will receive a payout.

[1bad65]

I dont know all the facts of this case, but when one side hires a race-baiter attorney like Crump, they lose alot of credibility in my book.