South Carolina trooper shoots unarmed man (1 Viewer)

[tdoss]

Tdoss - I honestly don't think anyone is saying that race played more of a factor than what you describe. The "he feared for his life" excuse is kind of a lame excuse though, considering there is absolutely nothing in the video that is life threatening. If that's the standard, our police should be disarmed entirely.

So...if "fearing for his life" can't be used here...what are you saying is the reason this cop shot him down?

It looks like fear to me...and it could definitely be racist fear...who knows...but it looks like this cop freaked out because he thought the guy was reaching for a gun.

If the cop was just looking to blast him...I think he would've been able to pull off the shot a little better..."knowing he was gunning down an unarmed man"...

It's that kind of comment that triggered my response.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I wonder if he even attempts to "pull the driver over" if the driver was white, or if he was just hassling the driver because he could, and because the driver was black.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Tdoss - I honestly don't think anyone is saying that race played more of a factor than what you describe. The "he feared for his life" excuse is kind of a lame excuse though, considering there is absolutely nothing in the video that is life threatening. If that's the standard, our police should be disarmed entirely.

So...if "fearing for his life" can't be used here...what are you saying is the reason this cop shot him down?

It looks like fear to me...and it could definitely be racist fear...who knows...but it looks like this cop freaked out because he thought the guy was reaching for a gun.

If the cop was just looking to blast him...I think he would've been able to pull off the shot a little better..."knowing he was gunning down an unarmed man"...

It's that kind of comment that triggered my response.

oh he was scared thats plain to see....its in his voice and his actions...thats why he missed so many shots at close range ...panic set in

 

[pollardsvision]

I think people seriously need to back up on the intent of the cop.

He saw the seatbelt violation and decided to call the guy out. Whether that's trumped up or not...who knows...but let's not act like the cop saw a black man a decided to do this as a way to shoot him.

The cop, at worst, saw a black man lunge towards the inside of his car...even though he told him to do this...and freaked out and shot the man.

If he was dead set on just shooting a black man...I don't think he would've missed so many times.

This cop simply freaked out...now whether that was racially motivated...I can see it debated...but people gotta stop responding like this cop did all this with the intent to shoot a black man.

I don't think anyone is saying he woke up that morning and decided to shoot a black guy. He clearly just freaked out. If there's any racial debate to be had here it's whether the victim's race had anything to do with the cop's freakout. And perhaps whether the victim's race had anything to do with his promptness to comply with officer instructions (because he didn't want to the America's Black Guy Killed By White Cop For No Reason of the Day).

We can't know for sure exactly what played into the cop's freakout, but we're allowed to guess, and my guess is that the victim's race played a big part in the cop's quick assumption that he was in danger.

Maybe no one is saying he woke up with that intention but there are comments of late that are trying to paint it differently:

"He didn't get behind his car door because he knew he was shooting at an unarmed man"

"Without video the cop would've said he feared for his life"

There's other comments too...what do those say to you? That this cop knew what he was doing and was simply gunning a black man down.

It's twisting the narrative.

Now...I don't doubt that race played a giant part in this...honestly...my gut says it did...but in the reaction...not in the initial intent.

The cop thought he had an easy ticket...the guy made a quick move to the inside of his truck and because of his training, because of the things he's seen daily on this job, the stories he's heard from fellow officers, racism, his upbringing, etc...he freaked the hell out and just reacted and started blasting...fearful for his life.

That's all I'm saying.

And yes...I still feel he should go to jail for attempted murder and whatever else we can throw at him...but it just seems disingenuous to start to twist it into this guy intended on killing an unarmed black man...for whatever reasons...be them racist or not.

My guess is that the vast majority of those forming an opinion on the matter agree with essentially all of that.

 

[pollardsvision]

Pulling up to this guy in the first place was really ####### stupid.

I know it was apparently for a seatbelt violation, but there's no way the idiot cop ever saw the guy not already in the Shell station parking lot.

Maybe it's still a violation to unbuckle in a parking lot right before you park, but even if it is, it hardly seems like something a cop should give a #### about. Many do it, and it's not a big deal. Certainly nothing for a cop to spend his time in parking lots scouring the rearview mirror for, and busting quick 3-point turns to enforce.

To top it off, the cop pulling up played out more like an ambush than a typical "pulling over" situation. The cop absolutely initiated a very odd (completely unnecessary) situation that he didn't have the nerve to handle.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Someoe who freaks out just because someone leans over in to their car shouldn't be wearing a badge or carrying a firearm. Seriously, how does anyone so neurotic and scared of things around him get to wear a badge???? Sorry, but "I was scared and freaked out" isn't a reason to start blasting away at someone.

 

[jonessed]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

 

[jonessed]

If his intention was to kill the guy from the get-go he wouldn't have tried to do it at a gas station in broad daylight in front of his dash cam.

The guy freaked out and South Carolina needs to seriously look at their recruiting and training methods. He clearly was not prepared or capable of performing his duties.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Someoe who freaks out just because someone leans over in to their car shouldn't be wearing a badge or carrying a firearm. Seriously, how does anyone so neurotic and scared of things around him get to wear a badge???? Sorry, but "I was scared and freaked out" isn't a reason to start blasting away at someone.

Worked for a hundred years when there were no cameras. Cops just having a hard time adjusting to the 21st century.

 

[kentric]

Tdoss - I honestly don't think anyone is saying that race played more of a factor than what you describe. The "he feared for his life" excuse is kind of a lame excuse though, considering there is absolutely nothing in the video that is life threatening. If that's the standard, our police should be disarmed entirely.

There's no other reason he would have shot the guy if he didn't "fear for his life". He saw the guy move quickly into the car and thought he was getting a gun. Was it a rationale belief? No. The cop freaked out and screwed up.

 

[pollardsvision]

If his intention was to kill the guy from the get-go he wouldn't have tried to do it at a gas station in broad daylight in front of his dash cam.

The guy freaked out and South Carolina needs to seriously look at their recruiting and training methods. He clearly was not prepared or capable of performing his duties.

From your mouth to the judge's ears.

 

[jonessed]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

Manpower is a huge cost. The idea that local municipalities are going to double their forces while not increasing coverage is a pipe dream.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

Manpower is a huge cost. The idea that local municipalities are going to double their forces while not increasing coverage is a pipe dream.

Maybe they need to be more effective with the resources they currently have - putting officers in dangerous situations, where they are not trained to handle effectively is bad policy - no matter how you slice it.

What is better - spending more for effective police work, or spending more on settlements for wrongful shootings?

 

[T Bell]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

The line of thought is that accountability reduces the precipitous actions of the meat head faction in law enforcement, which is all too prevalent. Knowing your actions and decision making is being watched (or will be watched after the fact) slows down a lot of officers and forces them into more of a communicative mode rather than one that's purely dictatorial or resorts immediately to force or the threat of it.

You're (again) using one instance of a camera capturing police misconduct as a way to claim that cameras don't prevent it, but that's a fallacy as the claim is not that they eliminate misconduct, simply that they reduce the instance of it. I just don't think that this guy has the temperament to be a cop, certainly not as displayed in that video. He was way too aggressive in pursuit of an extremely minor violation (if indeed it WAS even a violation) and then compounded the problem by horrendously failing to control the situation that he caused to dramatically escalate before VERY quickly resorting to the use of deadly force.

As no screening process for hiring officers will ever be perfect, in a sense the camera worked here too as it at least removed any after-the-fact ambiguity about the officer's actions that might have resulted from conflicting claims about the incident. Also, who knows whether the officer would have continued to shoot but for a potential realization that the dash cam was working - maybe that sort of thought belatedly caused him to settle down. We'll never know of course, but using this incident to write off the effectiveness of cameras doesn't work as an argument.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

The line of thought is that accountability reduces the precipitous actions of the meat head faction in law enforcement, which is all too prevalent. Knowing your actions and decision making is being watched (or will be watched after the fact) slows down a lot of officers and forces them into more of a communicative mode rather than one that's purely dictatorial or resorts immediately to force or the threat of it.

You're (again) using one instance of a camera capturing police misconduct as a way to claim that cameras don't prevent it, but that's a fallacy as the claim is not that they eliminate misconduct, simply that they reduce the instance of it. I just don't think that this guy has the temperament to be a cop, certainly not as displayed in that video. He was way too aggressive in pursuit of an extremely minor violation (if indeed it WAS even a violation) and then compounded the problem by horrendously failing to control the situation that he caused to dramatically escalate before VERY quickly resorting to the use of deadly force.

As no screening process for hiring officers will ever be perfect, in a sense the camera worked here too as it at least removed any after-the-fact ambiguity about the officer's actions that might have resulted from conflicting claims about the incident. Also, who knows whether the officer would have continued to shoot but for a potential realization that the dash cam was working - maybe that sort of thought belatedly caused him to settle down. We'll never know of course, but using this incident to write off the effectiveness of cameras doesn't work as an argument.

You are missing my point - which is better police work/procedures/training is required - not simply monitoring with cameras.

Stopping someone for jaywalking or a seatbelt violations should never rise to the level of an officer shooting a civilian. I believe that many police officers do a fine job, and can handle adverse situations admirably, but far too many officers are not trained to handle these situations, nor are they naturally inclined to find a mutual resolution - instead relying on the approach that they are the law, and anyone who does not bend to their will must be an enemy.

Police should be trained - at all levels - on how to defuse a hostile environment, rather than to pour fire onto it. We should not have to live in an us v. them mentality with law enforcement and all too often that is the case.

I think a large percentage of police officers (larger than the general population) consists of alpha-males, or alpha-male wannabes. Their preferred solution to most problems tends to be might makes right - and that leads to unnecessary conflict all too often.

 

[jonessed]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

Manpower is a huge cost. The idea that local municipalities are going to double their forces while not increasing coverage is a pipe dream.

Maybe they need to be more effective with the resources they currently have - putting officers in dangerous situations, where they are not trained to handle effectively is bad policy - no matter how you slice it.

What is better - spending more for effective police work, or spending more on settlements for wrongful shootings?

Settlements would be a lot cheaper than pairing officers.

I suspect they will simply invest in better training.

 

[CBusAlex]

If his intention was to kill the guy from the get-go he wouldn't have tried to do it at a gas station in broad daylight in front of his dash cam.

Sure, it's unlikely that he pulled the guy over with the intent of shooting him no matter what. Is it possible he wanted to shoot somebody, and this happened to be the first guy who gave him what he thought would be an excuse? I don't know that that's much more far-fetched than the idea that he honestly feared for his life during this stop.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

 

[jonessed]

If his intention was to kill the guy from the get-go he wouldn't have tried to do it at a gas station in broad daylight in front of his dash cam.

Sure, it's unlikely that he pulled the guy over with the intent of shooting him no matter what. Is it possible he wanted to shoot somebody, and this happened to be the first guy who gave him what he thought would be an excuse? I don't know that that's much more far-fetched than the idea that he honestly feared for his life during this stop.

I think it's actually pretty far-fetched.

 

[glock]

Medal of valor

Groubert, who joined the Highway Patrol in 2005, earned kudos for the other time he'd fired his gun in the line of duty.

Police said Groubert stopped a car that had passed him at a high rate of speed in Richland County in August 2012. The driver eventually took off without permission, and Groubert pursued him, police said.

Another trooper joined the pursuit, and the driver stopped at a bank, exited his vehicle and fired shots at both troopers in the parking lot, police said.

Groubert and the other trooper returned fire, injuring the suspect, the SCDPS said. At some point, it appeared that the suspect intended to go inside the bank, Iacobelli said.

That suspect was charged with attempted murder and convicted in 2013, according to the SCDPS.

The SCDPS gave Groubert a medal of valor in 2013 for his handling of the incident, Iacobelli said.

 

[tdoss]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?

Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Tdoss - I honestly don't think anyone is saying that race played more of a factor than what you describe. The "he feared for his life" excuse is kind of a lame excuse though, considering there is absolutely nothing in the video that is life threatening. If that's the standard, our police should be disarmed entirely.

So...if "fearing for his life" can't be used here...what are you saying is the reason this cop shot him down?

It looks like fear to me...and it could definitely be racist fear...who knows...but it looks like this cop freaked out because he thought the guy was reaching for a gun.

If the cop was just looking to blast him...I think he would've been able to pull off the shot a little better..."knowing he was gunning down an unarmed man"...

It's that kind of comment that triggered my response.

Please stop licking the badge. TIA.

 

[Fennis]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

Manpower is a huge cost. The idea that local municipalities are going to double their forces while not increasing coverage is a pipe dream.

Maybe they need to be more effective with the resources they currently have - putting officers in dangerous situations, where they are not trained to handle effectively is bad policy - no matter how you slice it.

What is better - spending more for effective police work, or spending more on settlements for wrongful shootings?

Settlements would be a lot cheaper than pairing officers.

I suspect they will simply invest in better training.

maybe they can sell some military equipment to pay for more officers

 

[cstu]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?

Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

It sounds like you're defending him.

No one is saying the cop shouldn't be wary but the guy didn't move until he was told to get his license. All the guy did was respond to the cop's request a little too quickly for a black guy. He should have stayed behind his car instead of rushing the guy if he thought he was reaching for a gun, that way he could have verified that he actually had a gun before firing.

 

[jonessed]

I also wonder if police officers should be required to work with a partner. It seems that asking individual police officers to control a situation is difficult and leads to poor decision making by a panicked officer.

That would be way to expensive for most local PDs. I think cameras on the cars and on persons is a more feasible option.

How do cameras help contain a volatile situation? I am not talking about being able to record the scene to dissect what went wrong afterwards, I am looking for a solution to prevent the situations from occurring.

A single officer is placed in overwhelming situations leading to poor decisions made in the heat of a moment. Two officers can better handle these situations preventing one officer from being overwhelmed.

I feel this is money better spent on police departments than more assault weapons, or tanks, or grenade launchers, etc. Effective police work relies on the trust of the community, building more relationships with feet on the street will do more to protect a community, and the officers, than training them to shoot for center mass the first time they feel threatened.

ETA - there was a dash cam here - how did that help?

Manpower is a huge cost. The idea that local municipalities are going to double their forces while not increasing coverage is a pipe dream.

Maybe they need to be more effective with the resources they currently have - putting officers in dangerous situations, where they are not trained to handle effectively is bad policy - no matter how you slice it.

What is better - spending more for effective police work, or spending more on settlements for wrongful shootings?

Settlements would be a lot cheaper than pairing officers.I suspect they will simply invest in better training.

maybe they can sell some military equipment to pay for more officers

How much military equipment do these guys have? Do you think it would cover doubling active cops indefinitely?

 

[tdoss]

Tdoss - I honestly don't think anyone is saying that race played more of a factor than what you describe. The "he feared for his life" excuse is kind of a lame excuse though, considering there is absolutely nothing in the video that is life threatening. If that's the standard, our police should be disarmed entirely.

So...if "fearing for his life" can't be used here...what are you saying is the reason this cop shot him down?It looks like fear to me...and it could definitely be racist fear...who knows...but it looks like this cop freaked out because he thought the guy was reaching for a gun.

If the cop was just looking to blast him...I think he would've been able to pull off the shot a little better..."knowing he was gunning down an unarmed man"...

It's that kind of comment that triggered my response.

Please stop licking the badge. TIA.

Lick my @zz, chief.

I can't stand cops...for the most part.

I'm on board the bus to get this cop locked up...I'm even onboard if the crowd starts yelling that this cop's fear was racially motivated...but as soon as a couple people on the bus start chanting that this cop didn't get behind his car door because he KNEW he was shooting an unarmed black man...it's time for me to call those people to task and ask them to stop trying to steer the bus down that dark avenue...or let me the hell off cause I'm not down with that.

 

[tdoss]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

It sounds like you're defending him.

No one is saying the cop shouldn't be wary but the guy didn't move until he was told to get his license. All the guy did was respond to the cop's request a little too quickly for a black guy. He should have stayed behind his car instead of rushing the guy if he thought he was reaching for a gun, that way he could have verified that he actually had a gun before firing.

Not defending him at all. Timscrotch is saying people are denying there's this perception that black males are "more dangerous". Who's denying that there's this perception?

I'm simply giving him that notion and asking him where he thinks that perception is coming from? Is it all just straight racism? Could there be any basis that this cop may have formed this perception?

A ridiculous percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated by black males...how could a human being work that job and not pick up on that after a while?

Doesn't make it right...just saying there's some reasoning behind that perception.

And I don't know what the cure for that is...cops need to be trained to see people as individuals and take each case as it is with no preconceived notions or bias...but that's gotta be tough to do sometimes.

I think they should evaluate cops mental state more...to see if any preconceived notions have taken root or if any new ones have formed...

Cops need to walk the beat more often...get to know the people they're patrolling FOR...

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Have to figure the cop was working off a profile to begin with. Seatbelt stop, ect.

He's probably going into it with the mindset of "this guy might be hiding something and might be dangerous"

Unfortunately, some of that is based off of race (and sex).

If this was a hot blonde (woman) reaching back into the car, he isn't shooting off a few rounds in fear for his life.

Only other explanation is some sorta crazy stress/similar incident/close call.

Either way, society should start thinking of ways to help these cops in these situations. #### aint working right now.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Pulling up to this guy in the first place was really ####### stupid.

I know it was apparently for a seatbelt violation, but there's no way the idiot cop ever saw the guy not already in the Shell station parking lot.

Maybe it's still a violation to unbuckle in a parking lot right before you park, but even if it is, it hardly seems like something a cop should give a #### about. Many do it, and it's not a big deal. Certainly nothing for a cop to spend his time in parking lots scouring the rearview mirror for, and busting quick 3-point turns to enforce.

To top it off, the cop pulling up played out more like an ambush than a typical "pulling over" situation. The cop absolutely initiated a very odd (completely unnecessary) situation that he didn't have the nerve to handle.

He saw a black man in a car that he could pull over for a ticky tack reason in the hopes that he could make a big bust. That's how the game is played.

 

[SacramentoBob]

W/o the tape, is there any doubt that we never hear of this incident?

Without the tape, we would've heard about a brave cop taking a violent thug off the streets.

 

[tdoss]

Pulling up to this guy in the first place was really ####### stupid.

I know it was apparently for a seatbelt violation, but there's no way the idiot cop ever saw the guy not already in the Shell station parking lot.

Maybe it's still a violation to unbuckle in a parking lot right before you park, but even if it is, it hardly seems like something a cop should give a #### about. Many do it, and it's not a big deal. Certainly nothing for a cop to spend his time in parking lots scouring the rearview mirror for, and busting quick 3-point turns to enforce.

To top it off, the cop pulling up played out more like an ambush than a typical "pulling over" situation. The cop absolutely initiated a very odd (completely unnecessary) situation that he didn't have the nerve to handle.

He saw a black man in a car that he could pull over for a ticky tack reason in the hopes that he could make a big bust. That's how the game is played.

That's been my experience. Cops will pull people over just because it's after 2 am in hopes of getting a dui.I was in court when a lawyer asked this cop how long he has been working third shift. 26 years.

He asked how many people did he pull over last year for possible dui. 570+

He asked how many resulted in dui arrests. 50+

THAT is a terrible percentage...and shows he was obviously just pulling people over for being around after a certain time.

I think the problem is that so much is tied to a quota. How many arrests did you make? How many tickets did you write? How much drugs did you confiscate? They get so caught up in those numbers that the focus shifts from wanting to protect and serve to just simply trying to pad their stats and keep their salary increasing until retirement. They start to lose sight that we're people...they just see us opportunities and possible life threatening events.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Bottom line is ...there is a right way to do your job and a wrong way...thats was the wrong way from start to finish.

 

[Jackstraw]

Wonder if he got training like this?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/ohio-walmart-police-slideshow-active-shooter-presentation

The police officer who shot dead a young black man in a Walmart store in Ohio as he held an unloaded BB rifle had less than two weeks earlier received what prosecutors called a “pep talk” on how to deal aggressively with suspected gunmen.

Sean Williams and his colleagues in Beavercreek, a suburb of Dayton, were shown a slideshow invoking their loved ones and the massacres at Sandy Hook, Columbine and Virginia Tech while being trained on 23-24 July on confronting “active shooter situations”.

“If not you, then who?” officers were asked by the presentation, alongside a photograph of young students being led out of Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. A caption reminded the trainees that 20 children and five adults were killed before police arrived.

Williams shot dead John Crawford III 12 days later, after a 911 caller repeatedly said that Crawford was pointing a gun at Walmart customers, including children. Surveillance footage released on Thursday showed Crawford passing shoppers with the air rifle at his side.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?

Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

This is the thinking that MUST stop.

There are approximately 460,000 sworn police officers in the Untied States. In 2013, there were 30 police officers killed by gunfire.

7 - Responding to a domestic dispute

6 - Serving Warrants

5 - Pursuing Robbery Suspects

4 - Officers Ambushed/home invasion

3 - Traffic Stops

1 - Officer killed in interview room

4 - Police dogs killed, included among the 30

While the odds of a police officer being shot and killed in a traffic stop are not 0%, it is so negligible that the first thoughts in dealing with a traffic stop should not be - OMG, he might shoot me!!

There is a 0.006% chance that an officer will be killed by gunfire under any scenario, compared to a 0.01% chance anyone in the US will die in an automobile accident in a given year.

By comparison, the FBI approximates that police officers shoot and kill 400 suspects per year in "justifiable homicides". (fivethirtyeight.com points out that the actual number is likely to be higher, and still does not include "unjustifiable homicides.)

Something is grossly wrong with the way police officers approach these incidents that they are 10x more likely to kill a suspect than be killed by a suspect - and it is not down to time at the range.

In a perfect world, nobody is killed in these confrontations. In an imperfect world, we must do a better job in selecting and training police officers to be better able to deal with complex volatile situations. More often than not, it seems as though the police officers will escalate a situation rather than deescalate. The shoot first, ask questions later, is a terrible policy for police officers to follow - or for us citizens to allow. We are brow-beaten with the argument that an officers safety is a paramount concern - but what about the safety of the citizens - they are 10x more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than vice versa.

Police should be a part of the community where the best police work is done by building relationships, gaining trust from the citizens. Far too often now - it seems as though the community and the police take an us v. them approach that is antagonistic, and ripe for trouble. Far too many people are afraid of the people who are sworn to protect, and too many of the people who are sworn to protect act above the law.

 

[tdoss]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

This is the thinking that MUST stop.

There are approximately 460,000 sworn police officers in the Untied States. In 2013, there were 30 police officers killed by gunfire.

7 - Responding to a domestic dispute

6 - Serving Warrants

5 - Pursuing Robbery Suspects

4 - Officers Ambushed/home invasion

3 - Traffic Stops

1 - Officer killed in interview room

4 - Police dogs killed, included among the 30

While the odds of a police officer being shot and killed in a traffic stop are not 0%, it is so negligible that the first thoughts in dealing with a traffic stop should not be - OMG, he might shoot me!!

There is a 0.006% chance that an officer will be killed by gunfire under any scenario, compared to a 0.01% chance anyone in the US will die in an automobile accident in a given year.

By comparison, the FBI approximates that police officers shoot and kill 400 suspects per year in "justifiable homicides". (fivethirtyeight.com points out that the actual number is likely to be higher, and still does not include "unjustifiable homicides.)

Something is grossly wrong with the way police officers approach these incidents that they are 10x more likely to kill a suspect than be killed by a suspect - and it is not down to time at the range.

In a perfect world, nobody is killed in these confrontations. In an imperfect world, we must do a better job in selecting and training police officers to be better able to deal with complex volatile situations. More often than not, it seems as though the police officers will escalate a situation rather than deescalate. The shoot first, ask questions later, is a terrible policy for police officers to follow - or for us citizens to allow. We are brow-beaten with the argument that an officers safety is a paramount concern - but what about the safety of the citizens - they are 10x more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than vice versa.

Police should be a part of the community where the best police work is done by building relationships, gaining trust from the citizens. Far too often now - it seems as though the community and the police take an us v. them approach that is antagonistic, and ripe for trouble. Far too many people are afraid of the people who are sworn to protect, and too many of the people who are sworn to protect act above the law.

Good luck with that.

I gotta think the training is telling them to always be on alert. Don't let that less than 1 percent chance happen to you.

But I agree with what you're saying.

I still think that regardless of how much you preach that...Most cops would've at least put their hand on their weapon or possibly drawn...with the way this guy turned and quickly reached into his car with no verbal response.

Whether they were behind their car door or not.

But you're right...it's the us vs them mentality that seems to be creeping into every aspect of our lives. Politics, religion, race...just look at the arguments between iphone users and Samsung users...or xbox vs playstation.

The problem is our leaders and for the most part, our authority figures, are not part of the communities they govern. That separation causes serious division.

I just watched a cop arrest a firefighter in SD because the firetruck was blocking lanes of traffic while they were performing a life saving procedure. That's just damned ridiculous...whatever happened to reasonable interactions with cops? Even if the firefighter is wrong...you can't warn him and then if ignored...cite him or deal with it tomorrow through their respective chiefs? The cop handcuffed him and walked him off the scene while they were still dealing with the event.

They've lost all common sense and just go by the letter of the law...completely ignoring the spirit of law.

 

[Golden Gopher]

What fracken caliber is he using to shoot him at very close range w/o tearing him up?

Maybe the guy was issued a pellet gun, because of how trigger-happy he was, sort of like Barney Fife (except Barney always had a gun with no bullets, IIRC).

I think there is definitely a racial component, for sure. If I get pulled over, and the officer asks me for my license/registration, I'm probably going to ask him if I can reach into the glove compartment to get the registration. I'm certainly not going to make any sudden quick movements, towards the back seat, etc. And, if I'm standing outside of the car, I'm certainly not going to reach quickly into the car, no matter what they've asked me to do. On top of all of that, if I was black, multiply all of that times 10. In other words, I'd be extra damn sure that I don't do anything to give them any cause for alarm. So, in other words, it probably wasn't in the guy's best interest to move as quickly as he did (whether he wanted to win the "shot in the leg" lottery or not).

That said, what he did (reaching quickly into his vehicle) certainly does not justify being shot (in the back, no less). Not to mention, as others have said, the cop didn't stop shooting until well after the situation was under control (at least in terms of the other guy clearly being of no harm to him). And shooting in a gas station parking lot, with people all over the place? Are you kidding me?

I mentioned this story to my wife yesterday, and we actually got into a pretty big argument over it. Her brother is a CHP sergeant in SoCal (not a trigger-happy type of guy, at all, in my opinion, by the way), and according to her, he would say that this shooting is justified (based on the cop feeling that he was at risk). Now, I don't think that my wife has actually talked to her brother about this particular incident (they have chatted about the one in Missouri, though), so I don't know for sure what he would say. From what she has told me, though (based on their conversations), times have changed. I was always under the impression that cops don't shoot people unless they see that the person in question has a weapon (or maybe not even unless the weapon is being pointed in the cop's direction). According to my BIL, that's not the case. If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.

I do know that cops are put in life-threatening situations every day, and I understand people like my wife being worried (for her brother's safety). He has lost members of his department (to shootings), and was involved in a pretty serious accident this spring, as a result of a high-speed chase. So, I get that it's a dangerous job, and the situations are not always black and white (no pun intended). But, I have a hard time believing that it's OK (in any rational person's mind) to shoot someone in the back, particularly when there is no reason to believe that they are armed (after all, this was in relation to a potential seat belt violation, right?).

This seems like a classic case of how one (or a few) bad apple(s) ruin things for everyone else. The cop, in the sense that knuckleheads like him give cops (in general) a bad reputation. And, the victim, in the sense that he probably doesn't get shot if he isn't black. In other words, unfortunately, enough people in his situation HAVE pulled guns from their vehicles that every cop is going to at least have that potential scenario in the back of their mind. Most react and handle the situation appropriately. This cop clearly did not.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

It sounds like you're defending him.

No one is saying the cop shouldn't be wary but the guy didn't move until he was told to get his license. All the guy did was respond to the cop's request a little too quickly for a black guy. He should have stayed behind his car instead of rushing the guy if he thought he was reaching for a gun, that way he could have verified that he actually had a gun before firing.

Not defending him at all. Timscrotch is saying people are denying there's this perception that black males are "more dangerous". Who's denying that there's this perception?

I'm simply giving him that notion and asking him where he thinks that perception is coming from? Is it all just straight racism? Could there be any basis that this cop may have formed this perception?

A ridiculous percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated by black males...how could a human being work that job and not pick up on that after a while?

Doesn't make it right...just saying there's some reasoning behind that perception.

And I don't know what the cure for that is...cops need to be trained to see people as individuals and take each case as it is with no preconceived notions or bias...but that's gotta be tough to do sometimes.

I think they should evaluate cops mental state more...to see if any preconceived notions have taken root or if any new ones have formed...

Cops need to walk the beat more often...get to know the people they're patrolling FOR...

As to your question (bolded): every time I or anyone else in this forum have raised this issue, we have been attacked by conservatives who absolutely do deny that there is any form of institutionalized racism among the police. For the most recent example, please read through the last 5 pages or so of the Ferguson thread.

 

[Sinn Fein]

What fracken caliber is he using to shoot him at very close range w/o tearing him up?

Maybe the guy was issued a pellet gun, because of how trigger-happy he was, sort of like Barney Fife (except Barney always had a gun with no bullets, IIRC).

I think there is definitely a racial component, for sure. If I get pulled over, and the officer asks me for my license/registration, I'm probably going to ask him if I can reach into the glove compartment to get the registration. I'm certainly not going to make any sudden quick movements, towards the back seat, etc. And, if I'm standing outside of the car, I'm certainly not going to reach quickly into the car, no matter what they've asked me to do. On top of all of that, if I was black, multiply all of that times 10. In other words, I'd be extra damn sure that I don't do anything to give them any cause for alarm. So, in other words, it probably wasn't in the guy's best interest to move as quickly as he did (whether he wanted to win the "shot in the leg" lottery or not).

That said, what he did (reaching quickly into his vehicle) certainly does not justify being shot (in the back, no less). Not to mention, as others have said, the cop didn't stop shooting until well after the situation was under control (at least in terms of the other guy clearly being of no harm to him). And shooting in a gas station parking lot, with people all over the place? Are you kidding me?

I mentioned this story to my wife yesterday, and we actually got into a pretty big argument over it. Her brother is a CHP sergeant in SoCal (not a trigger-happy type of guy, at all, in my opinion, by the way), and according to her, he would say that this shooting is justified (based on the cop feeling that he was at risk). Now, I don't think that my wife has actually talked to her brother about this particular incident (they have chatted about the one in Missouri, though), so I don't know for sure what he would say. From what she has told me, though (based on their conversations), times have changed. I was always under the impression that cops don't shoot people unless they see that the person in question has a weapon (or maybe not even unless the weapon is being pointed in the cop's direction). According to my BIL, that's not the case. If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.

I do know that cops are put in life-threatening situations every day, and I understand people like my wife being worried (for her brother's safety). He has lost members of his department (to shootings), and was involved in a pretty serious accident this spring, as a result of a high-speed chase. So, I get that it's a dangerous job, and the situations are not always black and white (no pun intended). But, I have a hard time believing that it's OK (in any rational person's mind) to shoot someone in the back, particularly when there is no reason to believe that they are armed (after all, this was in relation to a potential seat belt violation, right?).

This seems like a classic case of how one (or a few) bad apple(s) ruin things for everyone else. The cop, in the sense that knuckleheads like him give cops (in general) a bad reputation. And, the victim, in the sense that he probably doesn't get shot if he isn't black. In other words, unfortunately, enough people in his situation HAVE pulled guns from their vehicles that every cop is going to at least have that potential scenario in the back of their mind. Most react and handle the situation appropriately. This cop clearly did not.

WTF should a citizen who has been pulled over for a traffic violation have to worry AT ALL that a police officer might shoot them?

That is what is wrong here - I should not have to think that if I get pulled over for speeding, I better not reach for my license and insurance in any kind of awkward manner or I might die. Nobody should feel that scared of the police that a routine stop will result in death - based strictly on how someone else is feeling - are they having a bad day, are the edgy because the girlfriend left them, are they just pissed off at the world?

That is not acceptable.

Police officers shooting unarmed civilians is not acceptable.

I'll say this until I am blue in the face from a choke hold, but police officers need to be trained on how to deal with these situations. And then they need to be trained again, and again - until they learn that deadly force is a last resort - not a first resort.

This guy's first reaction was to shoot, and then figure out what was going on. That cannot be the policy - ever. Nobody will convince me that is a good policy for police officers to take - even taking into account the dangerous situations they find themselves in. Deadly force must be a last resort - meaning you have tried other options to contain the situation.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What fracken caliber is he using to shoot him at very close range w/o tearing him up?

Maybe the guy was issued a pellet gun, because of how trigger-happy he was, sort of like Barney Fife (except Barney always had a gun with no bullets, IIRC).

I think there is definitely a racial component, for sure. If I get pulled over, and the officer asks me for my license/registration, I'm probably going to ask him if I can reach into the glove compartment to get the registration. I'm certainly not going to make any sudden quick movements, towards the back seat, etc. And, if I'm standing outside of the car, I'm certainly not going to reach quickly into the car, no matter what they've asked me to do. On top of all of that, if I was black, multiply all of that times 10. In other words, I'd be extra damn sure that I don't do anything to give them any cause for alarm. So, in other words, it probably wasn't in the guy's best interest to move as quickly as he did (whether he wanted to win the "shot in the leg" lottery or not).

That said, what he did (reaching quickly into his vehicle) certainly does not justify being shot (in the back, no less). Not to mention, as others have said, the cop didn't stop shooting until well after the situation was under control (at least in terms of the other guy clearly being of no harm to him). And shooting in a gas station parking lot, with people all over the place? Are you kidding me?

I mentioned this story to my wife yesterday, and we actually got into a pretty big argument over it. Her brother is a CHP sergeant in SoCal (not a trigger-happy type of guy, at all, in my opinion, by the way), and according to her, he would say that this shooting is justified (based on the cop feeling that he was at risk). Now, I don't think that my wife has actually talked to her brother about this particular incident (they have chatted about the one in Missouri, though), so I don't know for sure what he would say. From what she has told me, though (based on their conversations), times have changed. I was always under the impression that cops don't shoot people unless they see that the person in question has a weapon (or maybe not even unless the weapon is being pointed in the cop's direction). According to my BIL, that's not the case. If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.

I do know that cops are put in life-threatening situations every day, and I understand people like my wife being worried (for her brother's safety). He has lost members of his department (to shootings), and was involved in a pretty serious accident this spring, as a result of a high-speed chase. So, I get that it's a dangerous job, and the situations are not always black and white (no pun intended). But, I have a hard time believing that it's OK (in any rational person's mind) to shoot someone in the back, particularly when there is no reason to believe that they are armed (after all, this was in relation to a potential seat belt violation, right?).

This seems like a classic case of how one (or a few) bad apple(s) ruin things for everyone else. The cop, in the sense that knuckleheads like him give cops (in general) a bad reputation. And, the victim, in the sense that he probably doesn't get shot if he isn't black. In other words, unfortunately, enough people in his situation HAVE pulled guns from their vehicles that every cop is going to at least have that potential scenario in the back of their mind. Most react and handle the situation appropriately. This cop clearly did not.

WTF should a citizen who has been pulled over for a traffic violation have to worry AT ALL that a police officer might shoot them?

That is what is wrong here - I should not have to think that if I get pulled over for speeding, I better not reach for my license and insurance in any kind of awkward manner or I might die. Nobody should feel that scared of the police that a routine stop will result in death - based strictly on how someone else is feeling - are they having a bad day, are the edgy because the girlfriend left them, are they just pissed off at the world?

That is not acceptable.

Police officers shooting unarmed civilians is not acceptable.

I'll say this until I am blue in the face from a choke hold, but police officers need to be trained on how to deal with these situations. And then they need to be trained again, and again - until they learn that deadly force is a last resort - not a first resort.

This guy's first reaction was to shoot, and then figure out what was going on. That cannot be the policy - ever. Nobody will convince me that is a good policy for police officers to take - even taking into account the dangerous situations they find themselves in. Deadly force must be a last resort - meaning you have tried other options to contain the situation.

you are 100 % correct ....i guess the motto ''protect and serve '' no longer exists. If you sign on to be a cop that doesnt give you carte blanche to pull a gun and fire at will

 

[T Bell]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?

Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

This is the thinking that MUST stop.

There are approximately 460,000 sworn police officers in the Untied States. In 2013, there were 30 police officers killed by gunfire.

7 - Responding to a domestic dispute

6 - Serving Warrants

5 - Pursuing Robbery Suspects

4 - Officers Ambushed/home invasion

3 - Traffic Stops

1 - Officer killed in interview room

4 - Police dogs killed, included among the 30

While the odds of a police officer being shot and killed in a traffic stop are not 0%, it is so negligible that the first thoughts in dealing with a traffic stop should not be - OMG, he might shoot me!!

There is a 0.006% chance that an officer will be killed by gunfire under any scenario, compared to a 0.01% chance anyone in the US will die in an automobile accident in a given year.

By comparison, the FBI approximates that police officers shoot and kill 400 suspects per year in "justifiable homicides". (fivethirtyeight.com points out that the actual number is likely to be higher, and still does not include "unjustifiable homicides.)

Something is grossly wrong with the way police officers approach these incidents that they are 10x more likely to kill a suspect than be killed by a suspect - and it is not down to time at the range.

In a perfect world, nobody is killed in these confrontations. In an imperfect world, we must do a better job in selecting and training police officers to be better able to deal with complex volatile situations. More often than not, it seems as though the police officers will escalate a situation rather than deescalate. The shoot first, ask questions later, is a terrible policy for police officers to follow - or for us citizens to allow. We are brow-beaten with the argument that an officers safety is a paramount concern - but what about the safety of the citizens - they are 10x more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than vice versa.

Police should be a part of the community where the best police work is done by building relationships, gaining trust from the citizens. Far too often now - it seems as though the community and the police take an us v. them approach that is antagonistic, and ripe for trouble. Far too many people are afraid of the people who are sworn to protect, and too many of the people who are sworn to protect act above the law.

While I grant you the numbers are still relatively low, you're mixing "shooting" with "killing" as if they're the same, and pointing to one where it suits you better, and then using the other the same way. What are the numbers for "shooting"?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?

Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

This is the thinking that MUST stop.

There are approximately 460,000 sworn police officers in the Untied States. In 2013, there were 30 police officers killed by gunfire.

7 - Responding to a domestic dispute

6 - Serving Warrants

5 - Pursuing Robbery Suspects

4 - Officers Ambushed/home invasion

3 - Traffic Stops

1 - Officer killed in interview room

4 - Police dogs killed, included among the 30

While the odds of a police officer being shot and killed in a traffic stop are not 0%, it is so negligible that the first thoughts in dealing with a traffic stop should not be - OMG, he might shoot me!!

There is a 0.006% chance that an officer will be killed by gunfire under any scenario, compared to a 0.01% chance anyone in the US will die in an automobile accident in a given year.

By comparison, the FBI approximates that police officers shoot and kill 400 suspects per year in "justifiable homicides". (fivethirtyeight.com points out that the actual number is likely to be higher, and still does not include "unjustifiable homicides.)

Something is grossly wrong with the way police officers approach these incidents that they are 10x more likely to kill a suspect than be killed by a suspect - and it is not down to time at the range.

In a perfect world, nobody is killed in these confrontations. In an imperfect world, we must do a better job in selecting and training police officers to be better able to deal with complex volatile situations. More often than not, it seems as though the police officers will escalate a situation rather than deescalate. The shoot first, ask questions later, is a terrible policy for police officers to follow - or for us citizens to allow. We are brow-beaten with the argument that an officers safety is a paramount concern - but what about the safety of the citizens - they are 10x more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than vice versa.

Police should be a part of the community where the best police work is done by building relationships, gaining trust from the citizens. Far too often now - it seems as though the community and the police take an us v. them approach that is antagonistic, and ripe for trouble. Far too many people are afraid of the people who are sworn to protect, and too many of the people who are sworn to protect act above the law.

While I grant you the numbers are still relatively low, you're mixing "shooting" with "killing" as if they're the same, and pointing to one where it suits you better, and then using the other the same way. What are the numbers for "shooting"?

Where am I mixing them - those are all killing numbers. 3 officers were killed at traffic stops. Two of those incidents the officer pulled up on an abandoned vehicle, only to be ambushed by an assailant. So only once was it a similar stop to this particular situation.

 

[T Bell]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?

Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

This is the thinking that MUST stop.

There are approximately 460,000 sworn police officers in the Untied States. In 2013, there were 30 police officers killed by gunfire.

7 - Responding to a domestic dispute

6 - Serving Warrants

5 - Pursuing Robbery Suspects

4 - Officers Ambushed/home invasion

3 - Traffic Stops

1 - Officer killed in interview room

4 - Police dogs killed, included among the 30

While the odds of a police officer being shot and killed in a traffic stop are not 0%, it is so negligible that the first thoughts in dealing with a traffic stop should not be - OMG, he might shoot me!!

There is a 0.006% chance that an officer will be killed by gunfire under any scenario, compared to a 0.01% chance anyone in the US will die in an automobile accident in a given year.

By comparison, the FBI approximates that police officers shoot and kill 400 suspects per year in "justifiable homicides". (fivethirtyeight.com points out that the actual number is likely to be higher, and still does not include "unjustifiable homicides.)

Something is grossly wrong with the way police officers approach these incidents that they are 10x more likely to kill a suspect than be killed by a suspect - and it is not down to time at the range.

In a perfect world, nobody is killed in these confrontations. In an imperfect world, we must do a better job in selecting and training police officers to be better able to deal with complex volatile situations. More often than not, it seems as though the police officers will escalate a situation rather than deescalate. The shoot first, ask questions later, is a terrible policy for police officers to follow - or for us citizens to allow. We are brow-beaten with the argument that an officers safety is a paramount concern - but what about the safety of the citizens - they are 10x more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than vice versa.

Police should be a part of the community where the best police work is done by building relationships, gaining trust from the citizens. Far too often now - it seems as though the community and the police take an us v. them approach that is antagonistic, and ripe for trouble. Far too many people are afraid of the people who are sworn to protect, and too many of the people who are sworn to protect act above the law.

While I grant you the numbers are still relatively low, you're mixing "shooting" with "killing" as if they're the same, and pointing to one where it suits you better, and then using the other the same way. What are the numbers for "shooting"?

Where am I mixing them - those are all killing numbers. 3 officers were killed at traffic stops. Two of those incidents the officer pulled up on an abandoned vehicle, only to be ambushed by an assailant. So only once was it a similar stop to this particular situation.

For the purposes of an officer's preparedness and his approach to such a stop, there is no difference between an officer being killed and an officer "only" being shot and wounded. Frankly, even being shot at and missed is another incident that would show prevalence of the use of a firearm against law enforcement officers, which is what's relevant here. Once a gun is drawn the officer can not rightly assume anything about his safety.

And that's a fair position for both sides - we can't excuse anything this officer did in this case just because the guy he stopped was "only" wounded and not killed. The officer opted to quickly jump to the use of deadly force and can only count himself lucky that he's not a manslaughterer or worse right now.

The point in this case was that, even ignoring that the officer instructed the man to retrieve his license, and even ignoring that the officer was initiating the stop for a minor traffic infraction, the officer still never saw a firearm.

That's why I'd like to see those other numbers, which I'm sure are many orders of magnitude larger than the 3 traffic stop killings, though likely still a small % of the overall number of traffic stops.

 

[tdoss]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

It sounds like you're defending him.

No one is saying the cop shouldn't be wary but the guy didn't move until he was told to get his license. All the guy did was respond to the cop's request a little too quickly for a black guy. He should have stayed behind his car instead of rushing the guy if he thought he was reaching for a gun, that way he could have verified that he actually had a gun before firing.

Not defending him at all. Timscrotch is saying people are denying there's this perception that black males are "more dangerous". Who's denying that there's this perception?I'm simply giving him that notion and asking him where he thinks that perception is coming from? Is it all just straight racism? Could there be any basis that this cop may have formed this perception?

A ridiculous percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated by black males...how could a human being work that job and not pick up on that after a while?

Doesn't make it right...just saying there's some reasoning behind that perception.

And I don't know what the cure for that is...cops need to be trained to see people as individuals and take each case as it is with no preconceived notions or bias...but that's gotta be tough to do sometimes.

I think they should evaluate cops mental state more...to see if any preconceived notions have taken root or if any new ones have formed...

Cops need to walk the beat more often...get to know the people they're patrolling FOR...

As to your question (bolded): every time I or anyone else in this forum have raised this issue, we have been attacked by conservatives who absolutely do deny that there is any form of institutionalized racism among the police. For the most recent example, please read through the last 5 pages or so of the Ferguson thread.

So...Instead of treating this topic as an individual case...you've decided to bring in your preconceived notions and jumped to conclusions...

You sound like this cop and what you're accusing him of...

But that's none of my biznass...

 

[tdoss]

What fracken caliber is he using to shoot him at very close range w/o tearing him up?

Maybe the guy was issued a pellet gun, because of how trigger-happy he was, sort of like Barney Fife (except Barney always had a gun with no bullets, IIRC). I think there is definitely a racial component, for sure. If I get pulled over, and the officer asks me for my license/registration, I'm probably going to ask him if I can reach into the glove compartment to get the registration. I'm certainly not going to make any sudden quick movements, towards the back seat, etc. And, if I'm standing outside of the car, I'm certainly not going to reach quickly into the car, no matter what they've asked me to do. On top of all of that, if I was black, multiply all of that times 10. In other words, I'd be extra damn sure that I don't do anything to give them any cause for alarm. So, in other words, it probably wasn't in the guy's best interest to move as quickly as he did (whether he wanted to win the "shot in the leg" lottery or not).

That said, what he did (reaching quickly into his vehicle) certainly does not justify being shot (in the back, no less). Not to mention, as others have said, the cop didn't stop shooting until well after the situation was under control (at least in terms of the other guy clearly being of no harm to him). And shooting in a gas station parking lot, with people all over the place? Are you kidding me?

I mentioned this story to my wife yesterday, and we actually got into a pretty big argument over it. Her brother is a CHP sergeant in SoCal (not a trigger-happy type of guy, at all, in my opinion, by the way), and according to her, he would say that this shooting is justified (based on the cop feeling that he was at risk). Now, I don't think that my wife has actually talked to her brother about this particular incident (they have chatted about the one in Missouri, though), so I don't know for sure what he would say. From what she has told me, though (based on their conversations), times have changed. I was always under the impression that cops don't shoot people unless they see that the person in question has a weapon (or maybe not even unless the weapon is being pointed in the cop's direction). According to my BIL, that's not the case. If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.

I do know that cops are put in life-threatening situations every day, and I understand people like my wife being worried (for her brother's safety). He has lost members of his department (to shootings), and was involved in a pretty serious accident this spring, as a result of a high-speed chase. So, I get that it's a dangerous job, and the situations are not always black and white (no pun intended). But, I have a hard time believing that it's OK (in any rational person's mind) to shoot someone in the back, particularly when there is no reason to believe that they are armed (after all, this was in relation to a potential seat belt violation, right?).

This seems like a classic case of how one (or a few) bad apple(s) ruin things for everyone else. The cop, in the sense that knuckleheads like him give cops (in general) a bad reputation. And, the victim, in the sense that he probably doesn't get shot if he isn't black. In other words, unfortunately, enough people in his situation HAVE pulled guns from their vehicles that every cop is going to at least have that potential scenario in the back of their mind. Most react and handle the situation appropriately. This cop clearly did not.

WTF should a citizen who has been pulled over for a traffic violation have to worry AT ALL that a police officer might shoot them?

That is what is wrong here - I should not have to think that if I get pulled over for speeding, I better not reach for my license and insurance in any kind of awkward manner or I might die. Nobody should feel that scared of the police that a routine stop will result in death - based strictly on how someone else is feeling - are they having a bad day, are the edgy because the girlfriend left them, are they just pissed off at the world?

That is not acceptable.

Police officers shooting unarmed civilians is not acceptable.

I'll say this until I am blue in the face from a choke hold, but police officers need to be trained on how to deal with these situations. And then they need to be trained again, and again - until they learn that deadly force is a last resort - not a first resort.

This guy's first reaction was to shoot, and then figure out what was going on. That cannot be the policy - ever. Nobody will convince me that is a good policy for police officers to take - even taking into account the dangerous situations they find themselves in. Deadly force must be a last resort - meaning you have tried other options to contain the situation.

Agreed...somewhere down the line...cops have been taught like this is a war zone and they act accordingly. Not that some situations aren't...but damn. Someone convinced them that their lives mean more because they're the law...and therefore it's ok to do whatever you must as long as you are safe at the end of the day. The rest will take care of itself.

First damned line of every watch command everyday before he sends them on patrol should be, "Let's try not shoot anyone today!"

 

[jonessed]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

It sounds like you're defending him.

No one is saying the cop shouldn't be wary but the guy didn't move until he was told to get his license. All the guy did was respond to the cop's request a little too quickly for a black guy. He should have stayed behind his car instead of rushing the guy if he thought he was reaching for a gun, that way he could have verified that he actually had a gun before firing.

Not defending him at all. Timscrotch is saying people are denying there's this perception that black males are "more dangerous". Who's denying that there's this perception?I'm simply giving him that notion and asking him where he thinks that perception is coming from? Is it all just straight racism? Could there be any basis that this cop may have formed this perception?

A ridiculous percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated by black males...how could a human being work that job and not pick up on that after a while?

Doesn't make it right...just saying there's some reasoning behind that perception.

And I don't know what the cure for that is...cops need to be trained to see people as individuals and take each case as it is with no preconceived notions or bias...but that's gotta be tough to do sometimes.

I think they should evaluate cops mental state more...to see if any preconceived notions have taken root or if any new ones have formed...

Cops need to walk the beat more often...get to know the people they're patrolling FOR...

As to your question (bolded): every time I or anyone else in this forum have raised this issue, we have been attacked by conservatives who absolutely do deny that there is any form of institutionalized racism among the police. For the most recent example, please read through the last 5 pages or so of the Ferguson thread.

So...Instead of treating this topic as an individual case...you've decided to bring in your preconceived notions and jumped to conclusions...You sound like this cop and what you're accusing him of...

But that's none of my biznass...

Welcome to the FFA.

 

[In The Zone]

The full 51 minute dashcam video was released today.

http://www.wistv.com/story/26640394/officials-release-full-51-minute-dashcam-video-in-trooper-involved-shooting

The trooper and his attorney spoke today. I saw this on the 7:00 news but can't find a video yet.

 

[In The Zone]

I'm not insinuating anything but that Shell Station is not in the best/safest part of town. Me, as a white male, could possibly get shot after dark in that area, and not by a cop.

I don't frequent that area in daylight.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with you about the Alpha Male thing Sinn Fein, but while a problem it's not the main problem. The main problem is racism against black men. Black men are perceived as more dangerous and thus are subject to greater scrutiny and more mistreatment by police, including being killed. I don't know how to solve this problem, but the first step is to acknowledge it, which so many people refuse to do.

Who's refusing this notion?Also, where is this thinking coming from? Is it possible that what this guy sees and deals with daily has formed an opinion in his mind?

And for people to say that a seat belt violation should never end in a cop shooting someone...well, I agree...except that's not what this cop thought this devolved into...

He pulls him over, guy makes a quick reach without saying much...my instincts kicked in as well upon first viewing...but only to have my gun at the ready...just in case this guy is a felon with a warrant who decided a seat belt violation is not going to be the thing that sends him back to prison once this cop runs his license.

You guys act like you've never seen videos of cops pulling someone over for whatever infraction and then while approaching the vehicle...the suspect starts to open fire.

That's what this cop thought was happening and he freaked.

Not to defend him...at most, he has his weapon at the ready in case this guy whips around with a weapon...opening fire without verifying there's a real threat is heinous and he should go down for it.

It sounds like you're defending him.

No one is saying the cop shouldn't be wary but the guy didn't move until he was told to get his license. All the guy did was respond to the cop's request a little too quickly for a black guy. He should have stayed behind his car instead of rushing the guy if he thought he was reaching for a gun, that way he could have verified that he actually had a gun before firing.

Not defending him at all. Timscrotch is saying people are denying there's this perception that black males are "more dangerous". Who's denying that there's this perception?I'm simply giving him that notion and asking him where he thinks that perception is coming from? Is it all just straight racism? Could there be any basis that this cop may have formed this perception?

A ridiculous percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated by black males...how could a human being work that job and not pick up on that after a while?

Doesn't make it right...just saying there's some reasoning behind that perception.

And I don't know what the cure for that is...cops need to be trained to see people as individuals and take each case as it is with no preconceived notions or bias...but that's gotta be tough to do sometimes.

I think they should evaluate cops mental state more...to see if any preconceived notions have taken root or if any new ones have formed...

Cops need to walk the beat more often...get to know the people they're patrolling FOR...

As to your question (bolded): every time I or anyone else in this forum have raised this issue, we have been attacked by conservatives who absolutely do deny that there is any form of institutionalized racism among the police. For the most recent example, please read through the last 5 pages or so of the Ferguson thread.

So...Instead of treating this topic as an individual case...you've decided to bring in your preconceived notions and jumped to conclusions...You sound like this cop and what you're accusing him of...

But that's none of my biznass...

Welcome to the FFA.

wtf? Tdoss, you asked me who had denied that there was a perception out there among police that blacks were more dangerous. I answered you. And now you tell me I sound like the cop and that I've got preconceived notions? Either you agree that most cops have racial perceptions about black males or you don't. Stop ####### around.