View Full Version : NJ Officer Shoots Defendant with his "Hands Up"
NJ Officer shoots Defendant on camera. Starts out as normal traffic stop for blowing through a stop sign. When the driver is getting out his papers it appears a gun was in the glovebox. The officer struggles numerous times to get the door open and eventually the defendant gets out of the car, at which point the officer shoots him several times. The defendant was told not to move several times.
Take a look, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about his one.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/22/dashboard-camera-video-shows-man-shot-by-nj-police-raising-his-hands/
wildcard600
01-22-15, 07:19
Another fine, upstanding citizen -
" Reid, 36, spent about 13 years in prison for shooting at
three state troopers when he was a teenager. And Days
knew who he was; Days was among the arresting officers
last year when Reid was charged with several crimes,
including drug possession and obstruction."
Not that i agree with him getting killed.
Paging Al Sharpton, Paging Al Sharpton in 3..2..1..
I don't think Sharpton will get involved since the black officer did most of the shooting. This does not follow his "Racist White America" narrative.
The officer knew the guy he shot. As the article stated he had multiple arrests and had shot at officers before. He was also recently arrested for drug possession. So general bad guy with a violent history and the officer knew him and his past. He didn't follow directions, was armed at one point, and got out of the vehicle even though the officer told him he would shoot him if he moved. Even though he had his hands halfway up he pushed the door open forcing his way out of the vehicle. Given all of that I think it would have been very hard not to react like the officer did. The States Attorney's office has refused to pick up the case. I think that say's a lot also.
Eurodriver
01-22-15, 08:58
The officer knew the guy he shot. As the article stated he had multiple arrests and had shot at officers before. He was also recently arrested for drug possession. So general bad guy with a violent history and the officer knew him and his past. He didn't follow directions, was armed at one point, and got out of the vehicle even though the officer told him he would shoot him if he moved. Even though he had his hands halfway up he pushed the door open forcing his way out of the vehicle. Given all of that I think it would have been very hard not to react like the officer did. The States Attorney's office has refused to pick up the case. I think that say's a lot also.
That's how you see it. That's how I see it. That's how J-Dub sees it.
That isn't how Malik sees it.
wildcard600
01-22-15, 09:12
The officer knew the guy he shot. As the article stated he had multiple arrests and had shot at officers before. He was also recently arrested for drug possession. So general bad guy with a violent history and the officer knew him and his past. He didn't follow directions, was armed at one point, and got out of the vehicle even though the officer told him he would shoot him if he moved. Even though he had his hands halfway up he pushed the door open forcing his way out of the vehicle. Given all of that I think it would have been very hard not to react like the officer did. The States Attorney's office has refused to pick up the case. I think that say's a lot also.
where does it say he was armed ? the article indicates the pistol was in the glove box.
SilverBullet432
01-22-15, 09:16
While this guy has had a violent past. I wonder to myself if I could get killed for simply getting out of my car with hands in air.. Or anyone else.. I mean really? Guy gets out (even thouhe was told not to) and they kill him... Just like that...
While this guy has had a violent past. I wonder to myself if I could get killed for simply getting out of my car with hands in air.. Or anyone else.. I mean really? Guy gets out (even thouhe was told not to) and they kill him... Just like that...
That is the concern...
Averageman
01-22-15, 09:43
While this guy has had a violent past. I wonder to myself if I could get killed for simply getting out of my car with hands in air.. Or anyone else.. I mean really? Guy gets out (even thouhe was told not to) and they kill him... Just like that...
I think it was a lot more than a violent past, it very well could have been a violent past with the Cop trying to keep him inside the car.
Here's the thing, after you take a couple of shots at cops, spend more than a decade in prison and then get out and start the whole thing over again, some of the Cops you come in to contact are going to remember you.
Now if the Black Cop who shot the thug might have had a little personal time in a Cruiser moving him from point A to point B and there might have been some conversation with a bit of colorful language and some promises of retribution, I think he was right to have popped him as he decided to get out of the car against his instructions.
The officers are lucky they didn't hit each other with the crossfire.
SilverBullet432
01-22-15, 09:57
Long story short: Guy with long rap sheet gets shot by cops he's had run ins with before..
That right there is news GOLD. Sometimes I really wish there was no "news". Maybe this world would be a better place..
That's how you see it. That's how I see it. That's how J-Dub sees it.
That isn't how Malik sees it.
Whoa nelly! Not so fast......
I don't know, this doesn't look too good.
So we've got a violent turd that has shot at police prior (im going to guess he's a felon and not supposed to have a firearm). Officer obviously sees a firearm in the glove box, as he reached in and pulled it out (you can see it on the film). Ofc. gives turd several commands of "don't ****ing move", however he tells his fellow Ofc. "hey rog we need to pull them out of the car", while trying to open the door.
Severity of the crime? - Moderate?
What the suspect and immediate threat to the Officers or others? - Maybe?....Possibly?
Was the situation tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving? - Kinda?
Look I understand that every Officer knows, "where theres one, theres two", and this guy has a history of shooting at Police. I don't know if this is going to go so great in court, when it gets there. As I noted above, this is walking a real fine line of being a no-go per Graham V. Connor supreme court ruling.
Personally? I vote bad shoot.
I think if the Officer would have stayed CALM, and stopped yelling "DONT ****ING MOVE", he probably could've communicated a little better. Like..."hey, if you reach for that gun, im going to shoot you....everyone put their hands on their head and interlock their fingers and don't move..(remove gun)" Then systematically remove each person like its a high risk felony stop, search them, and go on about your day. But hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.
where does it say he was armed ? the article indicates the pistol was in the glove box.
That is what I meant by armed at one point. He had access to a weapon right there in front of him in the glove box.
Good shoot. He wasn't complying for a reason. If a LEO tells you to stop whatever it is you're doing and you keep doing it you should not be surprised when you get shot. It's not rocket science.
SilverBullet432
01-22-15, 11:58
Yea but should you deserve to die for it?
Good shoot. He wasn't complying for a reason. If a LEO tells you to stop whatever it is you're doing and you keep doing it you should not be surprised when you get shot. It's not rocket science.
Right or wrong, if the man holding a gun on you gives you an order, ignore it at your own peril. Better you argue your case in court than your heirs....
Averageman
01-22-15, 12:39
Yea but should you deserve to die for it?
I'm sure with a rap sheet like that "deserving to die" was achieved at some earlier point, this was just Karma and a bucket load of stupid meeting at the same point of time and space.
I would say if that Cop had interacted with this guy before he had a real reason to fear him getting out of the car after being ordered not to at gun point.
The officer knew the guy he shot. As the article stated he had multiple arrests and had shot at officers before. He was also recently arrested for drug possession. So general bad guy with a violent history and the officer knew him and his past. He didn't follow directions, was armed at one point, and got out of the vehicle even though the officer told him he would shoot him if he moved. Even though he had his hands halfway up he pushed the door open forcing his way out of the vehicle. Given all of that I think it would have been very hard not to react like the officer did. The States Attorney's office has refused to pick up the case. I think that say's a lot also.
^^^^
Given this information and the fact we cannot see what was going on inside the Jaguar during the stop, we don't have all the information available to the State's Attorneys Office. It all boils down to the perception of threat by both officers at the instant the shooting occurred.
Good shoot or not, take notice that the driver was compliant with the other officer's directions and he did not get shot.
Interesting stuff. The crossfire is the first thing that jumped out to me. The decedent was warned several times not to move. I have been seeing a large influx of resisting cases where they have their hands up, but don't comply, pull away, run away. The root of the issue still seems to be a failure to comply with law enforcement orders.
That being said, this cop is pretty lucky he was black or else this would be front page all over the place, the video looks bad to the average person and there is just no way around that.
If an officer has pistol drawn and tells you 15 times not to move, and the individual ignores the request despite a pistol in their face, then begins to advance on said officer I see that as an act of aggression.
Another thought I wonder is if this was suicide by cop?
Another thought I wonder is if this was suicide by cop?
It is more likely an act of defiance that ended badly.
If an officer has pistol drawn and tells you 15 times not to move, and the individual ignores the request despite a pistol in their face, then begins to advance on said officer I see that as an act of aggression.
Another thought I wonder is if this was suicide by cop?
I think it was a "guy with a record" looking for an opportunity to flee.
I think it was a "guy with a record" looking for an opportunity to flee.
That was my thought as well. I'm still very curious to see what the state's attorney got to see and was their main fact for making the call.
I'll not lose much sleep over this one either. Guy with a gun tells you something you do it and quickly. Here I was thinking it was only white cops who shot black criminals? Imagine my surprise.
SilverBullet432
01-22-15, 18:37
^^^^
Given this information and the fact we cannot see what was going on inside the Jaguar during the stop, we don't have all the information available to the State's Attorneys Office. It all boils down to the perception of threat by both officers at the instant the shooting occurred.
Good shoot or not, take notice that the driver was compliant with the other officer's directions and he did not get shot.
I honestly thought they were gonna' smoke him too.
the video looks bad to the average person and there is just no way around that.
And this seems to be the crux of the problem. Too many citizens get their legal knowledge regarding lethal force from TV and movies - and its grossly inaccurate 99.9% of the time. The racist narcissistic oxygen thieves (Sharpton for example) will always be there and exploit whatever they can. But if we educate the public on why and when deadly force is appropriate (tactically) and legal, then people will be less apt to get spun up. The large LE agencies need to start pushing the truth as often as they can.
Eurodriver
01-22-15, 19:33
Whoa nelly! Not so fast......
I don't know, this doesn't look too good.
El Cid sums up my thoughts quite well.
Good shoot. He wasn't complying for a reason.
Part of the perception problem is when cops start screaming obscenities. A certain segment of the population still hates the f-bomb and sees it as a mark of low class.
Part of the perception problem is when cops start screaming obscenities. A certain segment of the population still hates the f-bomb and sees it as a mark of low class.
This is compounded by the fact that another segment of the population doesn't take you seriously unless you sound "gangsta." They see civility as weakness.
MountainRaven
01-22-15, 20:57
I can't tell what's going on with the video - it's buffering too much. Anybody have a better link, maybe Youtube?
The cop takes a gun from the glove box, and tells him not to move. Not only does he move, he unlocks and opens the door, while being told not to move a couple more times. Then as he exits the vehicle completely, the cop guns him down within a couple to three feet away.
Ask. Tell. Make. Right?
If you have a gun taken from your direct vicinty, it would stand to reason you might have another gun, a knife or some other ill will to the cop. Then you don't comply.
Night, night.
I kinda think knowing the story now the guy was getting out for a reason and was not to comply
sure we have all seen things like that they get out calm then charge and seen some bad things happen cause of it
without knowing the back story for sure looks bad knowing the story glad a thug is taking a dirt nap
The cop takes a gun from the glove box, and tells him not to move. Not only does he move, he unlocks and opens the door, while being told not to move a couple more times. Then as he exits the vehicle completely, the cop guns him down within a couple to three feet away.
Ask. Tell. Make. Right?
If you have a gun taken from your direct vicinty, it would stand to reason you might have another gun, a knife or some other ill will to the cop. Then you don't comply.
Night, night.
You are applying logic and reason.
Here are the relevant emotional points.
1. Dude was UNARMED when shot.
2. Dude had HANDS UP.
3. We all know from the chant "HANDS UP" means "YOU CAN'T SHOOT."
You have to remember cops are expendable public servants who made a choice, they get paid money to do their job. DUDE didn't make a choice, DUDE was born black and BLACK LIVES MATTER...unless you are a cop.
Moose-Knuckle
01-23-15, 04:02
I'm sure with a rap sheet like that "deserving to die" was achieved at some earlier point, this was just Karma and a bucket load of stupid meeting at the same point of time and space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQQHj8ZJ5lk
Moose-Knuckle
01-23-15, 04:05
This is compounded by the fact that another segment of the population doesn't take you seriously unless you sound "gangsta." They see civility as weakness.
Some people only understand one language . . .
Moose-Knuckle
01-23-15, 04:06
You are applying logic and reason.
Here are the relevant emotional points.
1. Dude was UNARMED when shot.
2. Dude had HANDS UP.
3. We all know from the chant "HANDS UP" means "YOU CAN'T SHOOT."
You have to remember cops are expendable public servants who made a choice, they get paid money to do their job. DUDE didn't make a choice, DUDE was born black and BLACK LIVES MATTER...unless you are a cop.
Well said and sadly spot on in today's "popular culture".
ramairthree
01-23-15, 14:00
Hands up?
Ok,
anyone willing to let a large known felon within arms reach of a gun with his hands in front of him moving towards you from a few feet away and not stopping as instructed please step up.
dwhitehorne
01-23-15, 15:42
Good shoot. He wasn't complying for a reason. If a LEO tells you to stop whatever it is you're doing and you keep doing it you should not be surprised when you get shot. It's not rocket science.
^^ This is the bottom line. No one has mentioned the convicted felon in possession of a firearm is commiting another felony. Felon not complying with commands may be moving to gain a tactical advantage. Lots of people seem to have gotten their POST certifications from Adam 12 and TJ Hooker. David
^^ This is the bottom line. No one has mentioned the convicted felon in possession of a firearm is commiting another felony. Felon not complying with commands may be moving to gain a tactical advantage. Lots of people seem to have gotten their POST certifications from Adam 12 and TJ Hooker. David
Actually I did. And some of us actually broke down the situation with a widely used supreme court ruling in deadly force incidents.
While I'm sure this guy was no angel, you simply cant say "oh he had it coming". Quite honestly, the situation becomes a cluster **** due to the Officer screaming "don't move", trying to open the door, yelling to the other Officer "we need to get them out of the car", and then blasting the dude when he.....gets out of the car. If he wanted him out, get him out. If he wanted him to stay in, keep the door shut (slam it, kick, whatever you have to do to keep it shut)
He (the Officer) could've calmly advised everyone in the car to stop moving, place their hands on the roof, or top of their heads (and interlock their fingers), as soon as he saw the gun. Once that is done, advise the other Officer that a weapon is present. Remove the gun in the glove box, and then remove each individual from the vehicle....like you would in a high risk felony stop.
Instead of screaming DONT ****ING MOVE DONT ****NIG MOVE THERES A GUN IN THE CAR THERES A GUN IN THE CAR.
This incident is going to cost someone a lot of money.
No one has mentioned the convicted felon in possession of a firearm is commiting another felony.
The gun being in the glovebox, and him being the passenger in the vehicle, makes him in possession of the firearm? I would've thought it was the driver of the vehicle.
While this guy has had a violent past. I wonder to myself if I could get killed for simply getting out of my car with hands in air.. Or anyone else.. I mean really? Guy gets out (even thouhe was told not to) and they kill him... Just like that...
Like so: Cop has gun pointed at you and yells "Don't move, don't f-ing move" and you ignore that and get out of the car, and well it will likely not end well. In the context of who he was and was known to the LEO, and the fact a gun within arms reach and he ignored the commands...nothing to see here. They were taking no chances nor should they be expected to. You/me, being typical law abiding types, pulled over for a traffic violation or something minor, asked to show drivers license and what ever your state requires, we follow basic commands, don't act like A holes and don't come back with out standing warrants when they run your info, you'll be in your way 99.9% of the time. There's no 100% in anything, so I won't pretend something can't happen that shouldn't, but it's very rare.
Me, not worried in the least about my chances of getting shot by LE under the normal circumstances I'm likely to interact with them. Your mileage may vary.
The gun being in the glovebox, and him being the passenger in the vehicle, makes him in possession of the firearm? I would've thought it was the driver of the vehicle.
It'd be a tough case to prove for sure. Especially if the driver acknowledged the weapon was his. Doing a GSR kit, you might get lucky if one of them recently shot it.
But you know, it was probably one of those "gun show loophole guns" that is untraceable.
Like so: Cop has gun pointed at you and yells "Don't move, don't f-ing move" and you ignore that and get out of the car, and well it will likely not well. In the context of who he was and was known to the LEO, and the fact a gun withing arms reach and he ignored the commands...nothing to see here. The were taking no chances nor should they be expected to. You/me, being typical law abiding types, pulled over for a traffic violation or something minor, asked to show drivers license and what ever your state requires, we follow basic commands, don't act like A holes and don't come back with out standing warrants when they run your info, you'll be in your way 99.9% of the time. There's no 100% in anything, so I won't pretend something can't happen that shouldn't, but it's very rare.
Me, not worried in the least about my chances of getting shot by LE under the normal circumstances I'm likely to interact with them. Your mileage may vary.
Suspect only got out of the car after the weapon was removed, and after the Officer attempted to open the door several times while saying "we've got to get them out of the car". Totally crystal clear, black/white situation. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy thought "well he wants me out of the car, and he cant get the door open....i'll just open it and get out....BANG"
Suspect only got out of the car after the weapon was removed, and after the Officer attempted to open the door several times while saying "we've got to get them out of the car". Totally crystal clear, black/white situation. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy thought "well he wants me out of the car, and he cant get the door open....i'll just open it and get out....BANG"
He thought wrong it appears. The LEOs attempts to open the door does not change "don't fu-ing move" with gun pointed at you in the context of that situation. I do think LE are likely being extra careful considering recent events, and I think LE would benefit from FAR more training on various fronts to their and "our" benefit, but that's a whole other topic. Gun removed? So what? Maybe he had another and was planning to employ when he was out of the car, etc. The fact is, the tone was set that this was not your average traffic stop for the LEOs by the gun and you can see how it went to another notch once the gun was part of the equation. Area also has to be taken into account. It's NJ, not TX or VT or WA where guns, and legal guns are part of the culture and expected. NJ is a messed up place and even the cops hate guns in NJ. I'm generalizing, but the only LEOs I have met who were anti gun where from NJ or NYC.
He thought wrong it appears. The LEOs attempts to open the door does not change "don't fu-ing move" with gun pointed at you in the context of that situation. I do think LE are likely being extra careful considering recent events, and I think LE would benefit from FAR more training on various fronts to their and "our" benefit, but that's a whole other topic. Gun removed? So what? Maybe he had another and was planning to employ when he was out of the car, etc. The fact is, the tone was set that this was not your average traffic stop for the LEOs.
Ya, who knows he could've had a suicide vest on too...or an RPG under the seat...or some C4.....
Oh and the tone was crystal clear.....Defcon 1 lose your shit DONT ****ING MOVE.
SilverBullet432
01-23-15, 17:36
Like so: Cop has gun pointed at you and yells "Don't move, don't f-ing move" and you ignore that and get out of the car, and well it will likely not end well. In the context of who he was and was known to the LEO, and the fact a gun within arms reach and he ignored the commands...nothing to see here. They were taking no chances nor should they be expected to. You/me, being typical law abiding types, pulled over for a traffic violation or something minor, asked to show drivers license and what ever your state requires, we follow basic commands, don't act like A holes and don't come back with out standing warrants when they run your info, you'll be in your way 99.9% of the time. There's no 100% in anything, so I won't pretend something can't happen that shouldn't, but it's very rare.
Me, not worried in the least about my chances of getting shot by LE under the normal circumstances I'm likely to interact with them. Your mileage may vary.
You have a good point. I don't have a problem with the popo, but some of them ( a few around here ) seriously think they are God. And that pisses me off. The gun, badge and "training" and now they are elite. On the other hand, I know some LEOS who are downright great kind hearted people. Who know who is who as soon as they interact with someone and know how to handle a situation.
I can't tell what's going on with the video - it's buffering too much. Anybody have a better link, maybe Youtube?
http://youtu.be/ys0OzmH_EPg
dwhitehorne
01-23-15, 18:49
What training have you received on this? This is what I got from Graham V Connor during In-Service last year.
Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."
Officers on the scene encounter someone they have been in an gunfight with before. That person is in a vehicle with at least one weapon. The convicted felon is not obeying commands. What is reasonable?
I don't think anyone will pay anything. In a civil action the preponderance of evidence means all the past actions of the convicted felon come into court. That's why you don't see any civil actions in the Trevon Martin or Michael Brown case. They can't suppress the criminal records or past criminal acts like they do in a criminal trial so all the prior bad acts get to be heard in court.
Actually I did. And some of us actually broke down the situation with a widely used supreme court ruling in deadly force incidents.
While I'm sure this guy was no angel, you simply cant say "oh he had it coming". Quite honestly, the situation becomes a cluster **** due to the Officer screaming "don't move", trying to open the door, yelling to the other Officer "we need to get them out of the car", and then blasting the dude when he.....gets out of the car. If he wanted him out, get him out. If he wanted him to stay in, keep the door shut (slam it, kick, whatever you have to do to keep it shut)
He (the Officer) could've calmly advised everyone in the car to stop moving, place their hands on the roof, or top of their heads (and interlock their fingers), as soon as he saw the gun. Once that is done, advise the other Officer that a weapon is present. Remove the gun in the glove box, and then remove each individual from the vehicle....like you would in a high risk felony stop.
Instead of screaming DONT ****ING MOVE DONT ****NIG MOVE THERES A GUN IN THE CAR THERES A GUN IN THE CAR.
This incident is going to cost someone a lot of money.
Averageman
01-23-15, 19:22
I think you have to ask, "What would I do?"
Place yourself in the position of the driver, the passenger and the Cop.
There being a bit of history between the Cop and the Passenger we don't exactly have the details, but I'm pretty sure based on his record they weren't in the same bowling league.
I was pulled over for weaving one night after driving 14 hours and being caught in a snowstorm for four additional hours. I had no doubt I was weaving, but when pulled over, with a pistol in the pocket of my hoodie I placed both arms out the window with my licence insurance and my CC permit in my hand. Both hands were visible as the officer walked up to my car. The first thing out of my mouth was, "I have a pistol in my sweater" I didn't try to play a hide and seek game or stump the chump. I had no issues and was sent on to my 4 mile away destination.
If you play stupid games you will win a stupid prize. Not obeying the Cops instructions and continuing to close the distance between officer and criminal (and this Cop knew him to be a thug) what alternative did the guy give the cop?
I've seen the other side of this game played out, you continue to talk, keeping both hands visible, close the distance talk talk talk in a nice normal tone and knock the sucker out when you get the range worked out You only have to see this once and you'll have a fine education on how fast someone can be on you, I am really glad this Cop had the guts and intelligence not to get caught in it.
dwhitehorne
01-23-15, 19:23
Correct. You don't have to have the weapon on your person, just the ability to access it. I was a traffic guy but the last gun case I had years ago was a domestic assault look out from another jurisdiction. I stopped the shuttle van on the look out. Driver had a Colt45 under the passenger seat in a brief case. Paper/mail with his name on it in the brief case. He got the 5 year mandatory.
The gun being in the glovebox, and him being the passenger in the vehicle, makes him in possession of the firearm? I would've thought it was the driver of the vehicle.
madisonsfinest
01-23-15, 19:27
The officer was not trying to open the door. He was trying to keep the door shut. He was leaning into the door until it was forced open.
I've watched this several times. I've even tried to watch it with sovereign colored glasses and sharpton colored glasses. The results are the same, given the totality of the circumstances this appears to be a good shoot. I find it incredible that some on here are suggesting that it is a bad shoot based on the same video I've seen. I know our world is upside down but what planet are we even on?
What training have you received on this? This is what I got from Graham V Connor during In-Service last year.
Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."
Officers on the scene encounter someone they have been in an gunfight with before. That person is in a vehicle with at least one weapon. The convicted felon is not obeying commands. What is reasonable?
I don't think anyone will pay anything. In a civil action the preponderance of evidence means all the past actions of the convicted felon come into court. That's why you don't see any civil actions in the Trevon Martin or Michael Brown case. They can't suppress the criminal records or past criminal acts like they do in a criminal trial so all the prior bad acts get to be heard in court.
SAWEET!!! The next time I pull over a convicted felon, that might have a gun in the car, that did something bad once.....it GO TIME!!!!!
I'm very pro law enforcement(since I am LE..derp), but I can also call a spade a spade.
(p.s. I'd have to check my POST training sheet to know exactly how many hours I've had on case law....Im sure its a few)
You cant get past the "severity of the crime at hand" without eyebrows being raised...."being close to a gun(at some point), and not listening to commands".....oh ya, smells like a good shoot to me.........
Oh and p.s., he shot at Police (troopers) 13 YEARS AGO. I highly doubt the Officer involved was involved in the prior incident. But hey, making up "facts" as we go along is fine too....whatever.
Eurodriver
01-23-15, 20:16
I'm a little baffled J-Dub. Has Irish taken hold of your computer, or are you losing it?
I am on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.
Officers hesitating and failing to control suspects is exactly how the Kyle Dinkhellers get killed. I see no issue with using lethal force on a person who you have knowledge that:
He has fired on law enforcement before
Has at least one gun found on/near him
Is not obeying
Change one of those variables, and my opinion changes. But all three? Yeah, you're right. It's GO TIME.
I'm a little baffled J-Dub. Has Irish taken hold of your computer, or are you losing it?
I am on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.
Officers hesitating and failing to control suspects is exactly how the Kyle Dinkhellers get killed. I see no issue with using lethal force on a person who you have knowledge that:
He has fired on law enforcement before
Has at least one gun found on/near him
Is not obeying
Change one of those variables, and my opinion changes. But all three? Yeah, you're right. It's GO TIME.
Exactly. The thing many people don't want to admit because it doesn't seem "fair" is that even without any of those previous incidents... If a subject is told to stop by a LEO (especially a uniformed officer) and he continues to advance, even unarmed and hands in the air, he can and should be shot. It's the right decision tactically and its within the law. This does not assume any extra circumstances such as the subject being 100 yards away or the officer in an MRAP. We were all taught, there's at least one gun at EVERY incident... Yours. If you allow someone close enough to touch it or you, then you've given up any advantage. Many predators know this and know most people will hesitate to shoot an unarmed person feigning surrender - even while advancing and failing to comply.
Funny enough a good example from Hollywood of this is the Heat scene with Deniro in the hallway after he kills Waynegro. That officer should have fired. Many - maybe even most would not.
Suspect only got out of the car after the weapon was removed, and after the Officer attempted to open the door several times while saying "we've got to get them out of the car". Totally crystal clear, black/white situation. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy thought "well he wants me out of the car, and he cant get the door open....i'll just open it and get out....BANG"
I completely missed that part. I actually thought the passenger side officer was trying to hold the door closed. That does monkey wrench the entire thing if the driver side officer is screaming "don't move" and the passenger side officer is indicating he wants the passenger out of the car.
This is one of those times when ALL of the officers involved really need to be on the same page. Reminds me of that Wal Mart shooting where police officers were giving contradictory commands. What a mess.
Also glad the drivers side officer didn't end up shooting the passenger side officer and glad the passenger side officer didn't end up shooting the driver. Everyone had somebody in their background when the shooting started.
The officer was not trying to open the door. He was trying to keep the door shut. He was leaning into the door until it was forced open.
That's what it looks like to me. So I'm defaulting back to my original assessment of the passenger looking for an opportunity to flee and ignoring all "don't move" commands.
SAWEET!!! The next time I pull over a convicted felon, that might have a gun in the car, that did something bad once.....it GO TIME!!!!!
I'm very pro law enforcement(since I am LE..derp), but I can also call a spade a spade.
(p.s. I'd have to check my POST training sheet to know exactly how many hours I've had on case law....Im sure its a few)
You cant get past the "severity of the crime at hand" without eyebrows being raised...."being close to a gun(at some point), and not listening to commands".....oh ya, smells like a good shoot to me.........
Oh and p.s., he shot at Police (troopers) 13 YEARS AGO. I highly doubt the Officer involved was involved in the prior incident. But hey, making up "facts" as we go along is fine too....whatever.
I respect your perspective here being you do the job and walk the walk which makes your opinion and perspective valuable. Given the circumstances as we know them, what would you have done and or, what do you feel would have been the appropriate response?
I'm a little baffled J-Dub. Has Irish taken hold of your computer, or are you losing it?
Hey now, slow down! I'm in the good shoot side of the house on this one. Although, it probably could've been handled a little differently.
Also, I don't think all OIS are bad shootings. However, I do view the evidence through my own lens, which sometimes isn't the same shade you might be wearing.
Looked to me like the officer was trying to hold the door shut too. Regardless of what was going on with the car door, the officer was clearly telling the guy not to move despite the earlier remark to his partner about needing to get them out of the car. The current and relevant commands in the several seconds leading up to the shooting was a loud, clear and emphatic "don't move!" It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to anyone seeing that video that the guy was forcing his way out of the car in obvious defiance of the offers commands and warnings that he would be shot.
So J-Dub, asking for a little speculation on your part here, what do you think he was shoving his way out of the car for, when the officer was clearly shouting not to move? If I were in that officers shoes, I would have to assume that the guy had bad intentions, given what we know. What is your assumption? What would you have done? I know you'll say you would have maintained your cool and prevented escalation to that point, but lets assume for the sake of discussion that the man still exited the car, hands up, moving in your direction, against loud and obvious commands to the contrary?
So J-Dub, asking for a little speculation on your part here, what do you think he was shoving his way out of the car for, when the officer was clearly shouting not to move? If I were in that officers shoes, I would have to assume that the guy had bad intentions, given what we know. What is your assumption? What would you have done? I know you'll say you would have maintained your cool and prevented escalation to that point, but lets assume for the sake of discussion that the man still exited the car, hands up, moving in your direction, against loud and obvious commands to the contrary?
Gee Wiz I don't know. Do you? I could make the case that the Officer did tell him not to ****ing move, while in the same breath telling him to "let me see your hands"? WTF does he want? Does he want him motionless? Or does he want to see his hands? Because I doubt if he freezes his hands are going to be visible, but if he moves to show his hands, is he going to be greased for not "listening"? He tells "Rog" we gotta get them out tha car......but he doesn't want them "out tha car"?
I don't know really know what the Officer wanted, or what the dead guy was planning on doing. I just think someone needs to play devils advocate sometimes, especially when folks are making statements like
"I'm sure with a rap sheet like that "deserving to die" was achieved at some earlier point"
Sorry, I assumed the board was for DISCUSSION. Not blindly following what everyone else is thinking. I apologize. Tag'em and Bag'em...who cares.
Do what you're told by LEO and live.
Simple...
Gee Wiz I don't know. Do you? I could make the case that the Officer did tell him not to ****ing move, while in the same breath telling him to "let me see your hands"? WTF does he want? Does he want him motionless? Or does he want to see his hands? Because I doubt if he freezes his hands are going to be visible, but if he moves to show his hands, is he going to be greased for not "listening"? He tells "Rog" we gotta get them out tha car......but he doesn't want them "out tha car"?
I don't know really know what the Officer wanted, or what the dead guy was planning on doing. I just think someone needs to play devils advocate sometimes, especially when folks are making statements like
"I'm sure with a rap sheet like that "deserving to die" was achieved at some earlier point"
Sorry, I assumed the board was for DISCUSSION. Not blindly following what everyone else is thinking. I apologize. Tag'em and Bag'em...who cares.
I'm with you. I started this thread to hear how people justify this one.
To me, and this is just my opinion, there is a serious issue here with how this was conducted. Yes, he was given commands, yes there was a gun. Yes, he was probably planning to run. However, while I don't view this as a case where the officer should be prosecuted, I would have some pretty serious reservations about this incident in general. I'm still waiting for someone to call this a bad shoot and give some legitimate reasons why.
I'm with you. I started this thread to hear how people justify this one.
To me, and this is just my opinion, there is a serious issue here with how this was conducted. Yes, he was given commands, yes there was a gun. Yes, he was probably planning to run. However, while I don't view this as a case where the officer should be prosecuted, I would have some pretty serious reservations about this incident in general. I'm still waiting for someone to call this a bad shoot and give some legitimate reasons why.
In a free society, questions are a good thing. I do think LEO's are probably quicker to pull that trigger these days with recent current events fresh in their minds*, and perhaps another would have gone hands on with the guy.
* = pure conjecture on my end and I have no proof to support it, but I wouldn't blame anyone out their risking their lives to be unwilling to take any risks when dealing with known criminals. Again, I couldn't do that job.
I don't think you're going to have someone call this a bad shoot given the video we have of the incident. You may have apologists, armchair quaterbacks, and LEO haters giving thier opinions of the incident and what they would have done. Some things I've heard from talking to people in my circles are that it could have been handled differently. I suppose the cops could have just let him go after taking the weapon out of the glove box so he could run off, thereby avoiding a shooting death. Is that how we want our police to do thier jobs?
I've went back to review the video several times and I also was able to hear the comments that many have repeated here but I still believe that the command to stay in the car was very clear and anyone with a basic level of communicating in English could understand it. As far as the deceased not understanding whether to stay still or show him his hands they are not mutually exclusive. He was being told to stay in the car and show the officer his hands, which is a very common occurence when dealing with felonious activity from a LEO's perspective. He was not told to exit the vehicle as the officer appeared to be attempting to hold the door shut.
There are always other ways to handle situations and we need to learn from all of them but learning from this and calling it a bad shoot are not the same. Some say they would diffuse the situation and some probably could have. But for anyone that has ever dealt with someone that simply would not obey lawful commands and had already made decisions about how they would react in LEO interactions and are now acting on those decisions, you had better realize that you are only in control of you. There are times that you do not control your environment or the people in it. During those times you either act, or step back. Sometimes there is no good course of action but you have to do something.
Sorry, I assumed the board was for DISCUSSION. Not blindly following what everyone else is thinking. I apologize. Tag'em and Bag'em...who cares.
Well Gee Wiz, seems like we are discussing it, so your assumption is/was correct.
To answer your final question, as far as I can tell, everyone involved in this discussion cares and my evidence is that they took the time to read the posts of others and type up a response.
Now I will speak for no one else, but I don't think this man deserved to die on that day solely for a crime he committed 13 years ago, or last week. I think he deserved to die because he had ill intentions toward the arresting officers and failed to follow simple, easy to hear directions from the man pointing the gun at him.
I'm also not blindly following anyone or anything. I watched the video, read the text, and formed my very own opinion. I related this to my own personal experiences and training, and put myself in the shoes of all involved. All that guy had to do to not get shot was sit still with his hands up, just like the driver did.
You, J-Dub, are the officer who has the daily life experience dealing with these types of situations. I've only had to deal with this sort of thing a few times in my whole life. As such, I would like to learn from your experience and knowledge. You think this was a bad shoot for the reasons you've already elaborated, and I would like to know what the officer in question should have done, or what you would have done, in this situation. What would have been the better course of action for this officer?
I'm sure you have done LEO scenario training. Here is your scenario: Known baddie, clearly defying every command you give him, forces his way out of the car despite you trying to hold the door shut on him and comes right at you with his hands raised, your gun is already drawn because you just witnessed the gun in the glove box in front of the known felon, his gun is now outside the car with you... Okay.... GO!
Ya, who knows he could've had a suicide vest on too...or an RPG under the seat...or some C4.....
I think you have lost it when you say stuff like this !
just like the anti gun nuts who say stuff like this about guns
you can always tell when someone KNOWS the truth but wants to try to ignore it with statements like this
Sorry, I assumed the board was for DISCUSSION. Not blindly following what everyone else is thinking. I apologize. Tag'em and Bag'em...who cares.
maybe we all see it the same way ! and are not blindly following each other maybe you are the one that is being blind in this case
Is that how we want our police to do thier jobs?
No sir, it is not. When a known violent felon is directly witnessed in the commission of another felony by law enforcement, I do not want them to let him run away, just so that we don't have to deal with emotional, irrational, non-sense.
I realize it was a rhetorical question, but I still felt it worthy of an answer.
Do what you're told by LEO and live.
Simple...
The problem being when you get contradictory directions from one or more officer. Then it get's less simple. Not saying that is what happened here, but making the point.
The driver in this case managed to follow officer directions and he is fine.
Heavy Metal
01-24-15, 18:52
They say some people just needs killin'
I think this case fits squarely within that situation.
I think you have lost it when you say stuff like this !
just like the anti gun nuts who say stuff like this about guns
you can always tell when someone KNOWS the truth but wants to try to ignore it with statements like this
maybe we all see it the same way ! and are not blindly following each other maybe you are the one that is being blind in this case
Baby Jesus in his gently rocking cradle knows, I don't always agree with J-Dub. His arguments have been in the past, in my perception, to often want to assume no wrongdoing by LEOs. Whether I have been right or wrong, in this case I strongly agree with his comments.
The example given wasn't "losing it". It was something everyone here should be glad an LEO like J-Dub still believes in, that being the very dangerous path we start down when "maybe he was going to..." is an acceptable explanation of deadly force.
How many members here carry every day? You want Officer Panicky and his confusing commands to be the reason you get lit up one night when your vehicle matches the description some nosey neighbor called in? Hey you might be innocent, but then again if you're carrying...well maybe you were going to ambush them later. So better dead now, right? Trials are for liberals and hippies.
I'm honestly a little surprised and disappointed by the amount of MOLON LABE, rooftop votin', 2A loving patriots are in this thread saying "If you don't follow a cops orders you are guilty and deserve to be shot". I was under the impression that sort of muj-esque activity mostly seen in third world shit holes was something we didn't want here. Or is our justice system not for all citizens as one might foolishly believe? Yeah there's ways to de escalate a situation. Thats something both parties should strive to do, but I would assert that if one party were OBLIGATED to make every attempt to, it would be the LE Professional.
I'm honestly a little surprised and disappointed by the amount of MOLON LABE, rooftop votin', 2A loving patriots are in this thread saying "If you don't follow a cops orders you are guilty and deserve to be shot".
Honestly, if a guy is just walking down the street or being pulled over I agree with you. I tend to subscribe to the "am I free to leave?" crowd since I have done nothing wrong.
But if you are a habitual offender who is actually known to the officers and they just took a gun out of the car...well that's a different scenario entirely. And if "I" were that habitual offender I'd understand it is probably in my best interest to fully comply with every directive from the officers in question.
I'm honestly a little surprised and disappointed by the amount of MOLON LABE, rooftop votin', 2A loving patriots are in this thread saying "If you don't follow a cops orders you are guilty and deserve to be shot".
You are painting an inaccurate picture here, albeit a colorful one.
No one is saying that if someone disobeys a cop's orders, confusing or not, that you deserve to die. What I am saying is that this particular guy, being a known violent felon, in the commission of another felony (handgun possession by a felon), willfully not complying when it was clear that he understood what the cop wanted and was demanding, under the threat of being shot for non-compliance, forcefully exiting the vehicle, taking steps toward the officer, with hands raised toward the officer... deserved to be shot. What do you think he was getting out of the car for? Was he going to pick a daisy and put it in the cops gun barrel? I think not. I think he was either retrieving his own gun, making a move to assault the cop in some way or other, or making a run for it.
The passenger did none of these things, and I don't think he deserved to be shot. The screaming mimi lady in the other thread from today did not comply, and I don't think she deserved to be shot either, in spite of how annoying her mouth was.
I wish the man had chosen to do something else, like sit still and comply, but he didn't. It cost him his life and I think the officers actions were reasonable and justified. I think had the officer not shot, we would likely be talking about a dead cop or two here. Personally, I'd much rather see a dead bad guy, than a dead LEO.
Honestly, if a guy is just walking down the street or being pulled over I agree with you. I tend to subscribe to the "am I free to leave?" crowd since I have done nothing wrong.
But if you are a habitual offender who is actually known to the officers and they just took a gun out of the car...well that's a different scenario entirely. And if "I" were that habitual offender I'd understand it is probably in my best interest to fully comply with every directive from the officers in question.
Sure and I'll lend the benefit of a doubt to the officer in light of that particular detail. In this incident. Though that's not the mantra right now, and I've been around enough flashing lights to know that the picture isn't always so clear when ID'ing suspects.
So had the issue been with the suspect filing for damages because of such an aggressive police response, I'd be in the corner or those saying his previous incidents should be justification for such an action. Guns drawn, hands on, oral commands and physical restraint for search, that's all what I would see as perfectly reasonable when dealing with a known violent felon. I can't say I agree that he deserved to be shot because of his criminal history. It would seem that however fair or justice-driven it may seem to us, the Justice System we tend to all use as our baseline to prevent heavy handed vigilante action has determined that the suspect has served his time as punishment for his past.
Heightened alert on approach, loud clear verbal commands, and immediate search of the suspects person and immediate surroundings. Sure.
Screaming nervous panicky contradicting commands with no clear approach towards a systematic search, resulting in the shooting of a suspect for following one command which violated another? Not okay. That's not what we should expect of those given the additional trust of their communities. And certainly nothing I'm willing to let slide because he was a dirtbag and deserved to be dead in some people's eyes. And I know there are some who really see it that black and white; if you don't comply, you deserve to die.
Just recently there was a thread where it was revealed an LEO use deadly force on a non compliant suspect and the entire department had a hand in making bogus claims on reports, planting evidence, the works. So I give the respect when contact is made and will do what I can to deescalate a situation. But we need to be real careful about how much we allow to go by as "shoulda done what he said" when it's not always necessary to pull the trigger. Whether we like them or not, our rights and governing principles (Constitution) are what this country is supposed to be run by. Even if it's not always the feel-good answer.
Simply put I assume everyone on M4C bases their daily actions on the idea that they won't be found guilty of a crime, certainly not put to death on the spot, as long as their innocence is proven in court. If we expect our day in court, we ALL get that. Unless obviously actively engaging LE or others. Plenty of our fellow citizens would say you or I deserve to be shot for carrying a gun and revealing that information during a stop. Luckily that's not how it works.
The officer knew the guy he shot. As the article stated he had multiple arrests and had shot at officers before. He was also recently arrested for drug possession. So general bad guy with a violent history and the officer knew him and his past. He didn't follow directions, was armed at one point, and got out of the vehicle even though the officer told him he would shoot him if he moved. Even though he had his hands halfway up he pushed the door open forcing his way out of the vehicle. Given all of that I think it would have been very hard not to react like the officer did. The States Attorney's office has refused to pick up the case. I think that say's a lot also.
This part makes it seem premeditated to me...
If one bring up the past criminal history of the deceased, one should also acknowledge the numerous complaints against the officers.
he had a gun, he was told not to exit the vehicle... he forced his way out of the car... the officer felt threatened and dropped him....
sorry...but even my strict dept would say that's a good shoot.
Every state statute I've perused states, in some way or another, that officers 'are justified in the use of reasonable to protect themselves or others' during the performance of their duties.
Additionally, the Supreme Court, in the last forty years has gone from the standard of 'behavior that shocks the conscience' of Johnson v. Glick to the current standard of 'objective reasonableness' established in the case of Graham v. Connor.
In Graham, Chief Justice Rehnquist, in delivering the opinion of the Court noted that: The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.... With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," violates the Fourth Amendment. (my note: in Garner and continuing in Graham the Court holds that the police use of force is a seizure to be judged under the reasonableness standard of the 4th Amendment) The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
So what we have here is an incident in which the pivotal decision by the officer had to be made in a split-second. Keep in mind this was a subject whose history the officer knew, who had been in possession/close proximity to a firearm. A man whom the officer had given, and was giving, lawful orders to keep his hands up and remain in the vehicle. A man who had forced open the door, which the officer had apparently been trying to keep from being opened. A man who then, despite all the officer's commands, and all the officer's efforts, exited the vehicle.
As all this occurs the officer has to determine the subjects intent. Was it to surrender peacefully? Was it to flee? Was it to advance, close the distance and grapple for the officer's weapon? Was it to access another weapon that the subject had concealed on his person?
How many times did we watch the video? How many times did the officer get to watch it before making his decision?
Put yourself in the officer's position. A subject knocks on the door of your house, you open the door partially with your weapon in hand, find you don't know him and try to close the door. The man pushes against the door, you try to hold it shut, but can't. As the door is forced open you spring back, the man enters and advances. In that split-second, what would you do? Are you willing, in the totality of those circumstances, to rest your continued existence on this stranger's goodwill?
A man is dead, I wish that had not occurred. But the fact is, in the totality of the rapidly evolving circumstances, I find it hard to judge his actions as being unreasonable.
Sure and I'll lend the benefit of a doubt to the officer in light of that particular detail. In this incident. Though that's not the mantra right now, and I've been around enough flashing lights to know that the picture isn't always so clear when ID'ing suspects.
So had the issue been with the suspect filing for damages because of such an aggressive police response, I'd be in the corner or those saying his previous incidents should be justification for such an action. Guns drawn, hands on, oral commands and physical restraint for search, that's all what I would see as perfectly reasonable when dealing with a known violent felon. I can't say I agree that he deserved to be shot because of his criminal history. It would seem that however fair or justice-driven it may seem to us, the Justice System we tend to all use as our baseline to prevent heavy handed vigilante action has determined that the suspect has served his time as punishment for his past.
Heightened alert on approach, loud clear verbal commands, and immediate search of the suspects person and immediate surroundings. Sure.
Screaming nervous panicky contradicting commands with no clear approach towards a systematic search, resulting in the shooting of a suspect for following one command which violated another? Not okay. That's not what we should expect of those given the additional trust of their communities. And certainly nothing I'm willing to let slide because he was a dirtbag and deserved to be dead in some people's eyes. And I know there are some who really see it that black and white; if you don't comply, you deserve to die.
Just recently there was a thread where it was revealed an LEO use deadly force on a non compliant suspect and the entire department had a hand in making bogus claims on reports, planting evidence, the works. So I give the respect when contact is made and will do what I can to deescalate a situation. But we need to be real careful about how much we allow to go by as "shoulda done what he said" when it's not always necessary to pull the trigger. Whether we like them or not, our rights and governing principles (Constitution) are what this country is supposed to be run by. Even if it's not always the feel-good answer.
Simply put I assume everyone on M4C bases their daily actions on the idea that they won't be found guilty of a crime, certainly not put to death on the spot, as long as their innocence is proven in court. If we expect our day in court, we ALL get that. Unless obviously actively engaging LE or others. Plenty of our fellow citizens would say you or I deserve to be shot for carrying a gun and revealing that information during a stop. Luckily that's not how it works.
I would agree that it would have been better if the officers seemed a little more in control of themselves and the situation and had a solid game plan. We've seen better, sadly we've seen worse.
black22rifle
01-25-15, 04:31
If the guy that got shot was known for shooting at police this may be ruled a good shoot. A few years ago in IN there was a case where a bad guy shot some guy over some odd reason, the victim survived, and the bad guy went to jail for x amount of years. Fast forward 10 or so years and the victim has since gotten his LTCH and began carrying. One day the victim sees the bad guy at some sort of party and as the bad guy is approaching him he reaches for his waist, I don't remember if he had a gun or not, but the victim draws and smokes him right there. I believe the case went ll the way to the IN Sureme Court I dont remember but it was ruled self defense. This may be a similar case.
Ya, who knows he could've had a suicide vest on too...or an RPG under the seat...or some C4......
so you agree that this (above) is a rational statement you agree with ?
IMHO you lost the argument part when you say childish stuff like this and go for extremes ? again like anti gun folks do ?
that is IMHO again LOOSING it big time
as far as escalating ? sounds like you are talking to my 6 and 10 year old where both parties should strive to get along ?
you are talking about a convicted criminal who has shot LEO in the past AND HAD A GUN ? do you really think once they go down the path of being combative and not listening they are on the lets strive to get along path ?
yes I dont like the power and attitude that to many LEO seem to be wielding and dont like the mandatory stops etc... but I am level headed enough to realize this is a one off situation and one that LEO face off with
Baby Jesus in his gently rocking cradle knows, I don't always agree with J-Dub. His arguments have been in the past, in my perception, to often want to assume no wrongdoing by LEOs. Whether I have been right or wrong, in this case I strongly agree with his comments.
The example given wasn't "losing it". It was something everyone here should be glad an LEO like J-Dub still believes in, that being the very dangerous path we start down when "maybe he was going to..." is an acceptable explanation of deadly force.
How many members here carry every day? You want Officer Panicky and his confusing commands to be the reason you get lit up one night when your vehicle matches the description some nosey neighbor called in? Hey you might be innocent, but then again if you're carrying...well maybe you were going to ambush them later. So better dead now, right? Trials are for liberals and hippies.
I'm honestly a little surprised and disappointed by the amount of MOLON LABE, rooftop votin', 2A loving patriots are in this thread saying "If you don't follow a cops orders you are guilty and deserve to be shot". I was under the impression that sort of muj-esque activity mostly seen in third world shit holes was something we didn't want here. Or is our justice system not for all citizens as one might foolishly believe? Yeah there's ways to de escalate a situation. Thats something both parties should strive to do, but I would assert that if one party were OBLIGATED to make every attempt to, it would be the LE Professional.
Ya, who knows he could've had a suicide vest on too...or an RPG under the seat...or some C4......
so you agree that this (above) is a rational statement you agree with ?
IMHO you lost the argument part when you say childish stuff like this and go for extremes ? again like anti gun folks do ?
that is IMHO again LOOSING it big time
as far as escalating ? sounds like you are talking to my 6 and 10 year old where both parties should strive to get along ?
you are talking about a convicted criminal who has shot LEO in the past AND HAD A GUN ? do you really think once they go down the path of being combative and not listening they are on the lets strive to get along path ?
yes I dont like the power and attitude that to many LEO seem to be wielding and dont like the mandatory stops etc... but I am level headed enough to realize this is a one off situation and one that LEO face off with
It WAS SARCASM for the love of jesus. Yes HE COULDVE had a gun, that's great, and SARCASTICALLY I made the above comment. Seriously, this is your big hang up in the discussion???? Not that some Officer completely lost his shit on the side of the road. But that I made a sarcastic comment regarding what the dead man "MIGHT HAVE HAD".
There's no argument to lose. Im stating my opinion. The entire situation was handled poorly, very poorly. I've got to wonder if this was how this officer was trained to handle such situations? Hit the "freak the hell out" button and go beast mode??? Or actually handle the situation in a calm collected "act like you've been there before" manner. Usually clear, concise directions are preferred over "DONT ****ING MOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME YOUR ****ING HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Especially when its a gun, SITTING IN A GLOVE BOX. By all means, lose your shit and go beast mode if its actually IN SOMEONE'S HAND, or being pointed at you.
There is no way in hell I would EVER advocate handling a situation in the manner this was done, ever. People you stop could be shitheads, there are probably weapons in every car you stop, if this is how you react when the two are mixed, you're probably going to be gunning down a lot of folks.
the bold part ? he DID have a gun and he is a convicted felon who has shot LEO before so once again you are trying to get away from the facts and ANYONE here will always assume people who are armed often carry more than one kinda weapon many carry a backup gun and I bet almost all of us are packing some kinda blade also
again I dont see it as some LEO lost it ?
I understand that :) but the fact you had to say that made you loose the argument IMHO :) trying to bring it to some childish level or blow so far past reality ?
it again is something the left does with guns ? OH what do you want next rocket launchers and C4
so when folks say stuff like this its lost IMHO :) if you are being serious be serious about it !
I see a convicted felon with a gun and history of shooting LEO fighting to get out of the car then FACE and put his hands up and advance toward the LEO
if you took much martial arts he actually had a good ready to fight arm position going and not a I give up hands up position and then turn around
you said:
Sorry, I assumed the board was for DISCUSSION. Not blindly following what everyone else is thinking. I apologize. Tag'em and Bag'em...who cares.
again I am just saying maybe we are not all blind and just all see it and agree with each other ? that does not make one blind ? if anything it makes the odd one out who cant see it as everyone else does the blind one ?
much like being color blind not seeing blue as blue
It WAS SARCASM for the love of jesus. Yes HE COULDVE had a gun, that's great, and SARCASTICALLY I made the above comment. Seriously, this is your big hang up in the discussion???? Not that some Officer completely lost his shit on the side of the road. But that I made a sarcastic comment regarding what the dead man "MIGHT HAVE HAD".
No there WAS a gun in the glove box. The gun was removed from the vehicle. Did you even watch the video???? At the time of the shooting HE DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON. Prior to the shooting, he NEVER HAD THE WEAPON IN HIS PHYSICAL POSSESSION.
Lol fighting position???? You're kidding me right? Oh ya, he got out all bladed off ready to do some bruce lee shit all right........(rolling my eyes).
It would've been great if the Officer would've given a logical command like "turn around, put your hands behind your back (or on head), get down on your knees and cross your ankles, sit back on your feet, don't move" or "get on the ground, arms out like an airplane, don't move".
But he didn't. He just shot him. Again its a shit storm of a situation. And personally I've never had the thought cross my mind "well this guy is a felon, so I can shoot him if I think he might do something".
(p.s. please figure out the difference between "loose" and "lose"...then we can talk about being taken seriously. Thanks)
MountainRaven
01-25-15, 15:20
Everybody just needs to remember one thing: This happened in New Jersey.
Where thugs who run get shot. Gun owners who get lost get arrested. And football players who abuse their SOs get probation.
:sarcastic:
the fact the gun was in the glove box is breaking the law
and was in reach of a convicted felon
passenger side glove box directly in front of him how did the LEO see the pistol ? I think all of us but you will see that as a situation where he most likely was ready to grab it especially knowing his past
and again most LEO I know assume if they just took gun from a convicted felon on person or within easy grabbing distance that he might still be armed and they will treat him as such
most convicted felons I think also know the drill of giving up or fighting and to get out face off is not the correct move
your bruce lee comments ? again childish at best but yes your arms up like that is kinda a ready position and not sure what bladed off means ? but whatever
No there WAS a gun in the glove box. The gun was removed from the vehicle. Did you even watch the video???? At the time of the shooting HE DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON. Prior to the shooting, he NEVER HAD THE WEAPON IN HIS PHYSICAL POSSESSION.
Lol fighting position???? You're kidding me right? Oh ya, he got out all bladed off ready to do some bruce lee shit all right........(rolling my eyes).
It would've been great if the Officer would've given a logical command like "turn around, put your hands behind your back (or on head), get down on your knees and cross your ankles, sit back on your feet, don't move" or "get on the ground, arms out like an airplane, don't move".
But he didn't. He just shot him. Again its a shit storm of a situation. And personally I've never had the thought cross my mind "well this guy is a felon, so I can shoot him if I think he might do something".
(p.s. please figure out the difference between "loose" and "lose"...then we can talk about being taken seriously. Thanks)
Tone it down... Mellow out... Take a chill pill... :cool:
SeriousStudent
01-25-15, 16:33
Tone it down... Mellow out... Take a chill pill... :cool:
Superb advice to all, and highly recommended.
Folks, if you wish to discuss this case, then please discuss the case. When someone adds personalization and dramatics, it really does not lend any weight to their side of the debate.
An Undocumented Worker
01-25-15, 17:44
If the passenger in that car took a chill pill he'd be alive today.
Did he have possession of the firearm when shot, no. If he had not been shot would he have been charged probably a 99% chance.
When he exited could he still have reached attacked the officer, yes. Were his hands really up, I don't think so. They were not up as if he was really concerned about being shot. While yes it was no " fighting" stance it also did not look like a complete surrender either.
Did he have a history of assaulting officers attempting to due serious bodily harm, yes. Was he just a felon, no. He was convicted of shooting at officers with the intent to do serious bodly injury.
Did he do a lengthy stay in prison where we was told to do specific things and learned to follow specific orders, I would yes.
To be honest it could go either way. We don't know if any other weapons were recovered from his person. We will never know his true intent and we have not heard the officers actual testimony. If the officer can actually articulate his reasons well that will be good for him. But like I said it could go either way.
An Undocumented Worker
01-25-15, 19:44
So a question for those in law enforcement. Has a suspect/detainee/whatever you wanna call em, ever improved their situation by arguing with the cops?
So a question for those in law enforcement. Has a suspect/detainee/whatever you wanna call em, ever improved their situation by arguing with the cops?
No not really. I mean if they made a valid point yes. But since I stay inside the scope of the law no. I have however given an that boy to a 16 year old who very politely asked if I needed consent or a search warrant to search his car that I was already searching. I explained to him that I had enough probably cause to search biased on x, y, z. I then asked him if he understood to which he said yes. I did the same thing I was going to do anyway( call mom and dad.)
Cagemonkey
01-25-15, 21:12
Everybody just needs to remember one thing: This happened in New Jersey.
Where thugs who run get shot. Gun owners who get lost get arrested. And football players who abuse their SOs get probation.
:sarcastic:Well said. F#ck NJ.
So a question for those in law enforcement. Has a suspect/detainee/whatever you wanna call em, ever improved their situation by arguing with the cops?
Not by arguing, but there is nothing wrong with asking questions. If the language is such that an officer feels there is going to be a physical confrontation, that is another story.
The video does not give us the whole picture of what occurred during this traffic stop. It gives us one perspective. A mountain of information will be presented to the State's Attorney's office after the investigation is concluded and the video will be only part of what is submitted. That is why they convene Grand Juries to review ALL of the facts and evidence.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.