good shoot

[wink]

This video was originally on youtube so some of you may have seen it. I don't remember it being posted for discussion on AW though. Watch the videos and read the commentary. What was your first and final reactions to this officer invovled shooting. While we will likely get a variety of opinions in the final analysis, I am sure they will vary greatly from your first thoughts on this use of force.

http://patterico.com/2006/06/08/4661/the-video-doesnt-lie-right/

 

[Fly Navy]

Amazing. Obviously a good shoot, and the time it took for the badguy to go down, seems like he was hopped up on some drugs.

Guess which video would be shown by the news for ratings? I'm willing to bet the first one.

Edit:

My first reaction to the first video was a possible bad shoot. I know that videos don't show everything (as in this case). It looked like the police shot a non-compliant but non-aggressive suspect in the back. Then again it took SEVERAL shots to put him down... indications he was on drugs and possible aggressive beforehand.

The second video makes it obvious.

 

[MasterBates]

First reaction, seeing vid #1. Possibly bad shot. BG looked like he was talking to someone off screen. Did not know it was an armed robbery call at that time.

After seeing video #2, good shot.

 

[Wankertank]

Bleeding on the ground from a cell phone? Maybe after 30 years of radiation to the head.

I feel the shooting is correct b/c the suspect did make a threating gesture with the cell phone. You dont even pretend to have a gun or make movements like that when officers are pointing weapons at you, it just aint smart...or good for your health.

 

[JIMMY]

i rememeber it as being a cell phone when i saw it on the news way back when... thats why it caused such an uproar. i still think the cops made the right call though.

 

[TLR RUNNER]

Being a police officer, I strongly agree with these officer's actions. Being from a city with a decent amount of violent crime, I would have responded this way every time. You just have to be in this situation to understand how quickly you must act. Just my opinion though.

 

[A4sForever]

My first (and second and third) reaction was: you don't "judge" shootings in two dimensions in a three-dimensional world.

You ALWAYS have to be there to have a complete picture ... it's never been any different.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I slowed the video down on both videos and watched them frame by frame. The first video is inconclusive. The only discernable evidence I could see from that video was the police officer on the left suddenly ducking. The reaction was instinctive and it can only be concluded that the officer felt threatened by something the perp did.

The second video is much clearer as to why the officer felt the need to duck. I'm actually surprised the suspect wasn't shot right there and then. It wasn't until a couple seconds later that the police officers started firing. When they did start shooting, the suspect was walking AWAY.

Unfortunately for us, we don't have any information to would provide us with a context of this situation. IMO, the officers would have been much more justified in shooting this individual when he quickly turned around toward them with his hand and arm raised, holding what they believed to be a gun. However, the fact that he was walking away with his arms down to his sides at the time of the shooting makes this a bad shoot.

A bit understandable? Yes. But a mistake none the less.

 

[wink]

My first (and second and third) reaction was: you don't "judge" shootings in two dimensions in a three-dimensional world.

You ALWAYS have to be there to have a complete picture ... it's never been any different.

People are asked to "Judge" shootings such as this every day. They were not there and most of the time simply have conflicting statements, no video, conclusive, representative, or not. They are called prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement administrators and jurors (civil and criminal). I might add that "being there" does not always result in having the complete picture. If it did, we would not have conflicting statements from witnesses and even participants. And that does happen. I have seen it in court myself. Differing accounts are not always from perjury, or some self interest contrary to the truth. While one may not wish to pass judgment on the actions of others in difficult lethal situations, most everyone will conclude something about the circumstance from what they know. And that review and any conclusions made about the incident will be a valuable learning experience. As none of us wish to learn about these types of encounters first hand, we can learn by evaluating the performance of others in lethal encounters.

 

[Fly Navy]

Unfortunately for us, we don't have any information to would provide us with a context of this situation. IMO, the officers would have been much more justified in shooting this individual when he quickly turned around toward them with his hand and arm raised, holding what they believed to be a gun. However, the fact that he was walking away with his arms down to his sides at the time of the shooting makes this a bad shoot.

A bit understandable? Yes. But a mistake none the less.

With the limited information we have available to us, I disagree with you.

Why the officer did not fire when he ducked? I don't know. But when the suspect was walking away, hands down at his side, he is already hostile. He is assumed armed (cell phone? Whatever. You point a cellphone at me in my house, I"ll think it's a gun too. Anyone would.). He pointed what looked like a firearm (to us and for argument we assume the cops did thing) at the police. He's demonstated an intent to do bodily harm on the police. Are you going to tackle him? Not me. Legally, I don't believe they have a duty to either, not at this point. If everything else being fair, this was the deciding factor, I'd vote good shoot. If you were Joe Civilian with a CCW? Wellllll.... you may be in trouble.

 

[wink]

Shooting someone who is not a deadly threat is a mistake (in this context). A justifiable mistake, in this case, IMO, but a mistake none the less.

 

[Fly Navy]

Shooting someone who is not a deadly threat is a mistake (in this context). A justifiable mistake, in this case, IMO, but a mistake none the less.

It was proven he was holding a cellphone? If so, it won't make it any easier for the police to deal with the after effects of the shooting, for sure. However, like you said, justifiable. People (suspects) are stupid. Stupid hurts.

 

[A4sForever]

.... I might add that "being there" does not always result in having the complete picture. ...

That's true ... but not "being there" will ALWAYS result in not having the complete picture.

 

[wink]

That's true ... but not "being there" will ALWAYS result in not having the complete picture.

Here is where I know we can all agree. If we define "being there" as the guy or guys involved directly, you are right. No one else can ever know exactly what that guy felt, feared, perceived, or actually saw. We couldn't know how he was trained, how recently trained, how experienced and what kind of experiences he had that influenced his actions. We would not know the last time he ate, slept, hugged his wife, was reprimanded by his supervisor, or dogged a bullet. All that and more comes to bear in a deadly force encounter. All the above is part of the "complete picture". No one but the poor ******* standing there will know all he has going for him and working against him.

 

[A4sForever]

Here is where I know we can all agree. If we define "being there" as the guy or guys involved directly, you are right. .......

ALL??? Todos ? Right on, Bruddah .... I've been tapped as an "expert witness :sleep_125 ... on two court cases ... firearms ... homicides ... and the ONLY guys who knew what went "down" were the PERPS, the COPS, and .... me.