Another LEO action shooting

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,530
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Read the storyline and watch the video. Again - I admit potential bias as a cop up front, but I also think I have the ability to describe and define WHY things happen in accordance with LEO training and case law decisions. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/22/das...sing-his-hands/ In various manners, between telling the subject not to move, to show his hands, to not get out of the car, warning his partner of a gun, the officer probably made about 20 verbal commands to warn and command the suspect. But the suspect wanted to get out of the car. I can only guess as to why; probably to run or attack; those are the only logical reasons he would not comply with the officer's commands. The suspect had been incarcerated previously for shooting at cops, had multiple arrests and was likley going to fight or flee. The suspect was known to the officer; he had been involved in previous arrests and knew of the history of the felon. The suspect had a gun in his immediate possession (SCOTUS case law defines this as the safety bubble for officers; if you can reach it, you can be considered a threat). It is reasonable to believe that more than one weapon was either in the car or on his body; certainly not inconvievable, and therefore just because one gun was removed from the car does not mean the threat of more didn't exist. The shooting officer was black; so was the suspect. That is the only reason this will not explode into racial tension. Ironically, the black officer followed the same protocol that any well-trained officer would. Had the roles been reversed and the white officer would have shot the black man, Sharpton would have already been down there. Lesson to learn here? Not unlike what I tried to show in the New Mexico officer death video, cops face uncertain risks. Do what a cop tells you; no more and no less. Don't make your interpretation of what you think the cop is telling you and then try to adjust for your own convenience or comfort. DO EXACTLY WHAT THE OFFICER TELLS YOU TO DO. I am NOT advocating for a uber-Police state. As a citizen and a parent and a husband, I don't want my life to become a quasi-facist state and be afraid of government. But at the same time, stupidity has a way of thinning the herd. If you're a known felon with a history of shooting at cops, and you have a gun within your reach and a cop tells you repeatedly not to move and to show your hands, don't get too upset when you chose to disobey and then are shot for non-compliance. And yet there is going to be an outcry as to how unjust some feel the cop's actions were. They will say things like: - they took the gun away, where was the threat? (it exists in the potential for other unknown weapons present) - he had his arms up; he was surrendering (except that he was never told to exit, and was in fact REPEATEDLY TOLD to NOT get out, and so raising one's hands could be the precursor to striking the head or neck of the officer, gragging the officer's gun, etc) - they should have used a Taser (the situation had already gone up the "Use of Force" scale to deadly force when the gun was found within reach of the felon. Police training does not teach us to respond to leathal force with non-leathal means. That is not a realistic response to the existing threat. Would YOU take a Taser to a gunfight?) The moment the felon was present with a firearm discovered within his reach, it became a deadly force situation. Once the suspect failed to comply, and actively moved towards the officer after repeated directives to not do so, he was shot. The facts are pretty much evident. Although I suspect some will try to make this into a topic of excessive use of force.
 
Last edited:
Messages
19,686
Location
Sunny Florida
"cops face uncertain risks" Stunningly accurate. Until all are willing to risk THEIR life when confronting a known felon desperate to escape or attack they should reserve their hasty agenda driven anger...
 
Messages
35,696
Location
NY
Very well written! Your last line will probably be spot on if/when the resident Trolls/Police haters read the thread.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Although I suspect some will try to make this into a topic of excessive use of force.
 

Bud

Messages
2,872
Location
Texas
The police have a dangerous and thankless job. Without them, it would be the wild wild west all over again, with the stronger preying on the weaker every chance they got.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
46,151
Location
New Jersey
"Both officers fire immediately, shooting at least six rounds.". But the officer doing the yelling and actions was black. Hmmmm. Of course the community is up in arms over this... So it's not a racial thing here necessarily. What a situation. It's amazing how dumb some people can be. Even just at traffic court, it's incredible how non-compliant and forgetful people can be. Stupid stuff like hands in pockets and chewing gum, that gets them in trouble with the judge. Why couldn't he follow instructions? Stupid, stupid. With hands up the officers could likely have made a more conscious decision than to fire immediately, but all the points of the situation indicate a dangerous scenario. I'm sure they had reams of data in the computer on those guys, and the officer knew of the guy already. Except the hands in the air part... Nobody wants an OK corral situation, and there is no reason apparently for him to get out, but is the action of getting out with hands up justifiable for lethal force? I suspect that is the question here. I sure wouldn't want to take chances with a gun toting felon. Does motion indicate intent? Maybe so, also maybe not, especially with hands up. Maybe one could argue he could have been tazed, or that a "better", calmer officer could have turned this out differently. They also could have been dead. Not saying the perp deserved to die, but it sure seems that policing aside, he had three strikes against him before getting out. The only gripe is have is that the officer kept using explitives and telling the guy he would be shot and die if he moved. I know, folks really ARE that stupid to not realize this, but perhaps the frantic shouting didn't help the situation.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,530
Location
Indianapolis, IN
As a side note, using explitives has been addresesed in training and court rulings. It is seen as an escalation of commands; it's is "modifier" of language. The cop didn't start out cussing at the man; it was used after his first commands had already been given. It was admittedly nearly immediate. Also, if you listen, he addresses the suspect by his first name. He clearly knows this suspect and his criminal history. If cursing has been used by either party in the past in their interactions, it is also seen as allowable in this circumstance. He also directly threatened to shoot the suspect; but that's kind of implied by pointing a gun at him anyway, isn't it? To verbalize modifiers and the obvious may seen redundant or excessive, but it's been decided in courts that it's allowable and does not otherwise alter facts. In fact, cops are generally taught to give as many commands as reasonably possible in conjunction with visual clues (pointing a gun, pointing a finger, etc). The cop could have stated: "Sir, please kindly produce your hands on the dash and cease all movement. If you do not comply I may have cause to distribute projectiles at high veloicty into you person. " Do you really think that would have reduced the tension here???? The suspect died because he made a conscious choice to limit his lifecycle by forcing the cop into only one reaction.
 
Last edited:

Win

Messages
4,705
Location
Arkansas
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I can only guess as to why; probably to run or attack; those are the only logical reasons he would not comply with the officer's commands.
I heard "show me your f'n hands" and "don't move" which are, in fact, conflicting commands. I did not hear the officrs say to not get out of the car, but I guess that is implicit within "don't move". But the dead guy was showing his hands palms forward when he took the better part of that mag in his chest, so it doesn't seem fair or right to say he was totally non compliant with the police directives. Looks iffy to me, but I guess we'll see how it plays out.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,530
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Go back and watch the video. As the suspect attempted to exit he was told several times not to do so. Do not move is akin to don't get out of the car. In fact it appears that the main officer was trying to force the door closed sevearl times as the susepct was trying to force it open. CLEARY the suspect was not complying! I disagree that "show me your hands" and "don't move" are contradictory. Simply opening your hands up, and minor movement to display them in a field of view for the officer is not contradictory commands. Technically, breathing involves movement; would it be your assertion that "don't move" means don't breath? Apply some common sense here. If the cop had stated "do not move" and "put your hands on the dash" that might have been somewhat confusing, but he didn't. Also, cops are allowed some discretion in their use of language as are all people. What is not allowable, and has been used to strike down arrests in court, is contradictory commands from multiple cops at once. One officer shouts to lay on the ground while another tells the same suspect to face against the wall and spread 'em. No person can comply with two diametrically opposed actions at the same time. THIS IS WHAT I MEANT BY CONTRADICTORY COMMANDS. There were two cops present, but only one was giving direct commands. Further, because there were two suspects and two cops, case law has shown that the suspects are expected to listen to whomever directly addresses them. If I am on a scene with a fellow deputy and we question two suspects, the one I am directly speaking to does not get to ignore me and listen to the other and claim he had opposing commands. This is part of my training package, and I suspect I'm not alone here. We are trained to make sure we're clear and clean; to not do or say things that would end up working against our case in court. Minor variances in commands are common and allowable. Major conceptual contradictory statements that no person can physically achieve are not. Don't play into the silly nuances of minutia here. Totallity of the circumstances and common sense prevail here, despite attempts to derail jurisprudence.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,877
Location
Alberta, Canada
I have talked to several police officers over the years about how they do their job, being faced with possible mortal danger everyday as it is something that is completely foreign to my lifestyle. Many of the criminals are on a revolving door of committing, conviction over and over again because the system is broken. Many criminals have escalating offences over the years and their criminal progression is known to the police during that time. Officers know the escalating pattern of offences and from history know that each time they deal with the suspect it is probably going to be worse each time around, as it rarely gets better. There is a bitter-sweet sadness that comes over some of the officers I have talked to when a criminal dies as many times the officers know these criminals by name, the names and ages of their kin, etc as they have had many dealings with them on different occasions...kind of a weird relationship for sure. Police officers are people, many with families at the end of the day want to get back home with loved ones alive and in one piece. The good ones loathe the thought of removing the gun from the holster because it will not usually end well. There is a flight or fight mechanism in the officer just like any human. If one has a conscience, we should know that taking a life of another human being will mess you up psychologically for a while I am sure. From what I have learned there are many who quit the force after taking a life because of the impact of doing so. We are not in the officers shoes. Unless we know the entire story including the back story, a 15 second video only gives a glimpse as to the situation.
 
Messages
13,058
Location
Indiana
Dnewton, your'e in Indiana. I want your opionion on this especially. Not picking sides on this situation whatsoever, but lets just say its best to do what a cop says. Not that hard. But in the event of a traffic stop, what does one do if they are legally carrying a handgun? Not sure on the laws where this was taken place, but what if they guy was legally able to have the gun? (Granted even if he was, he shouldnt have been trying to get to it in the glove box.) As soon as you get pulled over, is it best to say you are carrying a gun, but just keep your hands on the wheel at all times? I have a friend with an LTCH that was pulled over for speeding, but wasnt carrying anything. The cop ran his license and came back asking about it. He said he had a license, but didnt have anything on him at the time. I probably would have told the cop first personally.. whether carrying or not. The key is to keep your hands on the wheel during a traffic stop IMO.
 

Win

Messages
4,705
Location
Arkansas
OK, I didn't hear that, but I just watched it once, so I'll accept that as true. But show hands and don't move are inherently conflciting. You can't do the former without the latter. I perceive a double standard here, the officer gets slack in his use of language that he chose, but the person on the receiving hand doesn't get any in how he complies? I have a problem with that. You look at it through the prism of a police officer and that's fine. But it's also reasonable to look at it through the prism of the guy with a panic stricken cop pointing a gun and screaming at him. I think that's a fair characterization of what was going on. He was showing the officer his hands, up and palms forward. This is Monday morning quaterbacking admittedly, and I really don't have a problem with criminals meeting their fate, it just looks iffy to me.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
46,151
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Win
OK, I didn't hear that, but I just watched it once, so I'll accept that as true. But show hands and don't move are inherently conflciting. You can't do the former without the latter. I perceive a double standard here, the officer gets slack in his use of language that he chose, but the person on the receiving hand doesn't get any in how he complies? I have a problem with that. You look at it through the prism of a police officer and that's fine. But it's also reasonable to look at it through the prism of the guy with a panic stricken cop pointing a gun and screaming at him. I think that's a fair characterization of what was going on. He was showing the officer his hands, up and palms forward. This is Monday morning quaterbacking admittedly, and I really don't have a problem with criminals meeting their fate, it just looks iffy to me.
Im an Engineer; Youre a lawyer. Were trained to scrutinize and analyze and consider different things in different manners. But yours sure seems to me to be a voice of reason and reason to analyze and discuss. cheers
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,530
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I indicated that minor variances are allowable by many, many court decisions. Do no let synmantics rule here. Major variances are not allowable on either side. Watch the video. The suspect is clearly pushing the car door open many times, and the officer is pushing it closed while yelling not to move, show your hands, etc. Common sense here. The man escaped the vehicle by use of force. He had a gun present and very well could have had a knife, gun, screwdriver, etc in a pocket or sleeve. The risk was real and palpable. The officer had every right by UoF to shoot. Just because the suspect was "hands up" does not mean he's surrendering; it can easily be a ploy of compliance to lull the officer and gain advantage for attack. Remember this video from a few days ago? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/15/arizona-cop-body-cam-captures-fatal-encounter-with-suspect/ The suspect was cooperative right up to the point where he pulled a gun and killed the cop. The NM shooting guy was totally compliant until he killed the cop. This NJ indicent had no such cooperation at all; the suspect was totally non-compliant from the get-go. The suspect forced his way out, and put his hand well within reach of the officer. We are allowed a 21-foot rule by many court decisions, including SCOTUS. We as officers are allowed to apply our training and knowledge to each situation as it presents itself in a fraction of a second. You don't get to rewrite the rules of engagement after the fact, folks. What I've been trying to do with several thread is show the understanding and training of UoF doctrine and legal case decisions. The Brown event. The Garner video. The New Mexico officer Stewart shot by the DV suspect. Now this NJ event. Things happen in an instant that most folks want to second guess from miles away, days later. If an officer follows UoF protocol, he should be cleared of any charges. In this case in NJ, the officer had prior knowledge of the suspect's violent past, knew a gun to present in reach of a felon, experienced the suspect forcefully disobey both verbally and physically, and he shot him when the suspect articuably presented an imminent death risk. Quit trying to blame cops for following protocol. And ask yourself what YOU would have done differnt if you were that cop, but didn't get to hit the replay button from the chair in front of your computer? Want to judge an officer's actions? Take his training and stand in his shoes when you're the one getting beaten, shot or simply ignored.
 
Last edited:
Messages
22,188
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
what if they guy was legally able to have the gun?
The ex felon in the passenger seat who was shot COULD NOT have legally had that gun; he had just gotten out of jail after 13 years for...........wait for it............shooting a cop in Chicago! crackmeup The black cop who shot that thug knew him and had every right to be freaked out and he did the right thing. One less worthless thug off the street as far as I'm concerned.
 
Messages
22,188
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted By: Win
You look at it through the prism of a police officer and that's fine. But it's also reasonable to look at it through the prism of the guy with a panic stricken cop pointing a gun and screaming at him. I think that's a fair characterization of what was going on.
Win, the guy who was shot was a convicted felon who was in prison for 13 years for shooting a cop. The officer who shot him knew this and knew him; he knew he was a convicted felon with a firearm in his vehicle. "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." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-new-jersey-police-shooting-20150121-story.html That puts things into better perspective. From the cops point of view: known/convicted felon who shot at cops who has an illegal firearm in the car who won't obey commands. From the thugs point of view: Cop who knows who I am sees my illegal firearm in the car and is going to arrest me and I'm going back to prison.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
46,151
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
That puts things into better perspective. From the cops point of view: known/convicted felon who shot at cops who has an illegal firearm in the car who won't obey commands. From the thugs point of view: Cop who knows who I am sees my illegal firearm in the car and is going to arrest me and I'm going back to prison.
Right that's why I said before that he kind of had three strikes against him before any interaction went down. Doesn't mean the cop had it out for him or anything like that, but that is a reason to be more concerned.
 
Top