Another cop murders a suspect

[jeffas69]

Puppycow,

Evidence that he wasn't dragged? Even if it was only a few inches?

Any evidence for anything in your second statement?

 

[eeyore1954]

The reason he "fell down" is because he fell down on purpose after he shot the man. Realizing he had just shot a man and it was on camera that was all play acting.

You know this how?

 

[Babbylonian]

All 5 of those countries have low civilian firearm ownership rates or a much lower homicide rates than the US*. I don't think its fair or sensible to ask police officer in the US to no longer routinely carry.

I better line of inquiry would be to review and adopt police procedures where cops do carry but have far far fewer police shooting than the US. Ie Germany... or really the rest of the developed world.

*Also police in the UK do routinely carry in one really dangerous part: Northern Ireland. So even they adjust their policies when needed. And Belfast's murder rate isn't even as bad as some US cities. The article linked does day Britain, but NI is part of the UK.

Also, also, Norwegian police keep a firearm in their patrol car according to wiki.

Everything in your post seems pretty irrelevant. Why? Because the point (as I read it) wasn't that US police officers shouldn't be armed. It was that the officers in nations where police don't routinely carry firearms, given the exact same situation otherwise, would obviously do something other than pull a gun.

Do you think that police officers in the US are trained to draw, let alone fire, their gun at someone attempting to drive away from a routine traffic stop? Should they be so trained?

 

[Z]

<snip>

Do you think that police officers in the US are trained to draw, let alone fire, their gun at someone attempting to drive away from a routine traffic stop? Should they be so trained?

I really don't think they ARE trained this way. They're certainly not trained to fire a LETHAL shot at a fleeing suspect in a minor situation like a traffic stop. There was no verbal warning, no warning shot, no shot to disable. Just BANG! in the head. That's what's going to damn him, I think, whether the car moved an inch or a foot, whether he was entangled or not, whether the car was a danger to him or not. His response was entirely inappropriate to the situation. Manslaughter, definitely.

 

[foophil]

Thank you for that detailed analysis to Joe Random's question. Something I'm curious about: How much responsibility does the officer have to minimize danger/harm. Let's say he's standing close by the car where he could get run over or hit by the rear of the car if the driver drove off, but he has the ability to jump back out of the way.

Does he have the right to stand his ground, literally, and therefore use deadly force to prevent being hit while staying in that exact spot? Or is he expected legally to jump back and therefore can't justify use of deadly force, because he had a non-aggressive way to avoid the harm?

That's my interpretation of what I'm seeing in the video.

That is where it gets a little more murky. A case in my hometown involved a police officer who pulled a student over. Due to poor choices, the officer got in front of the driver's car. The student decided he wanted none of this and started to drive off, directly at the officer, but not with the intention of running the officer over. In the heat of the moment, the officer did not know whether the student was going to try to kill him or was just trying to escape, and rather than take the chance, he drew his gun and started shooting into the windshield. Seven shots were fired over the span of just a few seconds. The driver was hit and killed. After investigations were complete, it was determined the first couple of shots were justified, but the later shots were deemed to happen as the car was passing the officer. A grand jury indicted him for manslaughter because the later shots were determined to be what killed the student. A six person jury then later decided that he was found not guilty of the charges.

The argument for charging him was that he should have stopped shooting the moment the threat had passed. The defense was that in the heat of the moment, nobody would have known the exact second to stop firing into the car, and of course could not have read the mind of the student as to whether any life was in danger or not. The officer did stop shooting after the car was past him, so he didn't go all Hollywood on the student and fire at the vehicle while it was speeding down the road. He clearly showed restraint in a very tense situation.

Unfortunately for him, he later went bankrupt, his wife divorced him, and the agency had fired him. Sometimes I wonder why anyone wants to be a cop.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20031101/LOCAL/211010340

In general, the minimum use of force should be used. A cop shouldn't whip out a gun and start shooting any time there is a chance of bodily harm. Force should be escalated or de-escalated depending on the situation. The jury has to decide if a reasonable person would have done the same thing. It can sometimes be justified that the first use of force needs to be a deadly one, as in the case of a car driving towards you or an active shooter.

I don't think the case in the OP approaches this though. A jury will have to decide once all evidence is in.

 

[bruto]

I'm only going to comment on a single sentence:

Why is the highlighted ever a good idea in a situation like this or appropriate according to police protocol?

That also strikes me as the obvious problem. The cop drew his gun and that is an inherent threat to kill the motorist. So the motorist fled, and the cop killed him. What a surprise. Now his apologists are blaming the motorist for what his dead body did?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Tried to point out the same thing earlier. There is no evidence that he was "dragged" whatsoever. Argument by assertion, IOW ipse dixit.

The reason he "fell down" is because he fell down on purpose after he shot the man. Realizing he had just shot a man and it was on camera that was all play acting. A car can't run you over if you are standing next to the driver's door.

It's great that we have a witness here in the thread.
Can you elaborate on his state of mind a bit further?
This is going to be very enlightening.

 

[foophil]

I guess that means there would be a larger chance for the eventual defense in this case to claim it was a legal shoot if they somehow convince a jury that the car was in flight. Unless, as brought up above, taking a reasonably available non-violent withdraw option is mandated.

The driver in this case may have a record and have had every intent of escaping at that moment, but since he wasn't John Dillinger or just coming off a high speed chase I can't see how using lethal force to stop him driving off could be justified.

That is what the defense will have to hinge on. *Did the vehicle start to drive off AND was the officer in a situation where bodily harm was likely AND was there no other way for the officer to de-escalate it (such as removing his arm from the window and letting go)? Will a jury buy that excuse? The defense has a tough job ahead of them. I can only imagine the possible riots if the officer is eventually found innocent.

*I am assuming state laws are similar there of course

 

[RandFan]

All 5 of those countries have low civilian firearm ownership rates or a much lower homicide rates than the US*. I don't think its fair or sensible to ask police officer in the US to no longer routinely carry.

I better line of inquiry would be to review and adopt police procedures where cops do carry but have far far fewer police shooting than the US. Ie Germany... or really the rest of the developed world.

*Also police in the UK do routinely carry in one really dangerous part: Northern Ireland. So even they adjust their policies when needed. And Belfast's murder rate isn't even as bad as some US cities. The article linked does day Britain, but NI is part of the UK.

Also, also, Norwegian police keep a firearm in their patrol car according to wiki.

Thanks. I'm not asking the police in the US to stop carrying. I accept your points but I would look at the entire picture, include Germany and not toss out all of the data. Our culture is one of shoot if there is any danger. This needs not be. BTW: Iceland is one of the most armed nations in the world. Canada which is not mentioned is also heavily armed.

It's not the guns. It's the attitude. A 70 fold increase in the rate of officer involved shootings cannot simply be accounted for by the crime rate.

Good post.

 

[Babbylonian]

I really don't think they ARE trained this way.

Neither do I. It was more of a rhetorical question, though the second one is less so given that we have people in this thread defending his action.

They're certainly not trained to fire a LETHAL shot at a fleeing suspect in a minor situation like a traffic stop. There was no verbal warning, no warning shot, no shot to disable. Just BANG! in the head. That's what's going to damn him, I think, whether the car moved an inch or a foot, whether he was entangled or not, whether the car was a danger to him or not. His response was entirely inappropriate to the situation. Manslaughter, definitely.

Why I think it's murder:
1. A police officer is given the power of life and death in exchange for greater responsibility, most importantly the responsibility to protect civilians from harm.
2. There are procedures in place for handling criminal suspects. They do not include shooting a suspect to death in the absence of an immediate threat. Despite the nonsense spouted by some in this thread, there was no such threat to the officer or anyone else.

So, the great responsibility entrusted to him and the complete abrogation of that responsibility despite training and procedures that would have had him acting otherwise makes me call it murder. The local prosecutor seems to think so, too.

All that said, if he's convicted it probably won't be for second-degree murder. It'll probably be either a plea to manslaughter or a jury deciding on the lesser included charge of manslaughter because they don't want to give life imprisonment to a cop. That wouldn't mean it wasn't murder.

 

[3point14]

I'm only going to comment on a single sentence:

Why is the highlighted ever a good idea in a situation like this or appropriate according to police protocol?

Because then one can shoot them if they don't comply.

One does not draw a weapon unless one is prepared to use it.

Either that or it could be viewed as 'brandishing', which is a crime when a member of the public does it, perhaps the police are allowed to brandish with impunity

 

[3point14]

I couldn't tell you the exact details of police protocol or why they've arrived at the rules they have, but based on my observations of police encounters over the years, I do believe they are permitted to use their firearm as a threat to gain compliance once a suspect has acted in some sort of threatening way.

If this is the case then I can see why there are (apparently) a lot of shootings by officers.


1 - Innocent member of the public does not comply

2 - Draw weapon and threaten member of public

3 - Member of public still does not comply

4 - Shoot.



Four has to be there as, as any parent knows, one does not make a threat one is not prepared to follow through on.


Any police officer who draws a weapon to ensure co-operation rather than to defend themselves or others is just asking for enormous amounts of trouble when waving a gun around doesn't work. Where does the embattled officer go from there. Putting the weapon away would definitely lose face and, from only casual observation, police officers really, really don't like losing face (even when it's the best option.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I should add that if the driver turned the wheel at all after the officer went for the keys that this may have caused the entanglement. ....

There was no entanglement! Having your arm inside a window is not evidence said arm was entangled in anything.

You see the gun kickback, you see a guy shot point blank in the head fall over. At no point during that is said officer moving in a dragged or entangled manner.
Even if the car took off a fraction of a second before the kill shot, there was no dragging in evidence. Just a cop with a gun pointed at an open window. Even if said cop was 'entangled' and we couldn't see it, he would have needed the reflexes of a mantis shrimp to react that fast to recognizing his 'entangled' left arm and shooting to save his life.

It's ludicrous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Do you think that police officers in the US are trained to draw, let alone fire, their gun at someone attempting to drive away from a routine traffic stop? Should they be so trained?

No but apparently they need a lot more training on when and how to let a suspect flee without killing them. Perhaps more emphasis on, relax, we'll get the guy later?

 

[Babbylonian]

No but apparently they need a lot more training on when and how to let a suspect flee without killing them. Perhaps more emphasis on, relax, we'll get the guy later?

They could perhaps also stress the difference between a traffic law violator and a murder suspect.

 

[steve s]

I should add that if the driver turned the wheel at all after the officer went for the keys that this may have caused the entanglement.

.

No. Look at the two pics in post #68. Both of the officer's hands are visible and neither is entangled in the wheel.

Steve S

 

[ryu238]

Some racists are saying since Mr. Dubious was trying to run he deserved to be shot. What is proper procedure here? Because to me the cop went to far.

 

[Z]

Some racists are saying since Mr. Dubious was trying to run he deserved to be shot. What is proper procedure here? Because to me the cop went to far.

I was told by a Cincinnati officer that the proper procedure is to let him run, and catch him up later. Hearsay, I admit.

Some racists are saying that since the suspect had a prior record, he deserved to be shot. Sorry, I don't care if he's an ex-felon, child molester, arsonist, murderer, or Republican. No one deserves to be shot.

Slow torture and mutilation, on the other hand...

 

[ryu238]

I think he simply fell down from shock and the he tried to get back up...hence why it seemed he was dragged, the camera didn't help.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think he simply fell down from shock and the he tried to get back up...hence why it seemed he was dragged, the camera didn't help.

He could have simply tripped backing up in a hurry, the gun kickback, the shock of pulling the trigger, moving back because the car actually did take off after the guy was dead,... it's not relevant as it happens after the kill shot and it's not evidence he was 'entangled'. It's evidence he could have backed away from the car before he pulled the trigger.