Cop found guilty of felonious assault w/ a firearm during traffic stop

[SpeedRacer]

My old supervisor had a LOD fatal shooting. He fired one round of .40cal speer gold dot 180gr and killed the guy.

LOD?

My point was, if the motorcycle guy was a perceived deadly threat, what exactly did he "do" to immediately eliminate that threat and make the officer comfortable enough to reholster his pistol a second or two after firing a shot in fear for his life? His back was still turned, hands still hidden from view, actually even more so since he fell behind his bike. Seems like if he was sure enough to fire that one shot, there was no reason not to fire more.

That's why I think it looks more like a ND. I guess they figured they'd give it a shot defending it in court as a clean shoot.

For the record I know there's always more to the story, I'm just giving my opinion based on what little facts were presented.

 

[radney]

Are you saying that someone with their back to you is never a threat?

If their back is to you with no seen weapon straddling a parked motorcycle and in full view of the spotlight and dash cam while you are already drawn on him then no, he could not threaten your life (unless you really are a completely incompetent). Only thing he could do is run.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

If their back is to you with no seen weapon straddling a parked motorcycle and in full view of the spotlight and dash cam while you are already drawn on him then no, he could not threaten your life (unless you really are a completely incompetent). Only thing he could do is run.

OK

 

[my-rifle]

I can understand that a cop would have a different take on this than the rest of us, but if all you have to do to be perceived as a threat is to sit on a motorcycle with your back to a cop, then the system really needs to be reworked.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

If their back is to you with no seen weapon straddling a parked motorcycle and in full view of the spotlight and dash cam while you are already drawn on him then no, he could not threaten your life (unless you really are a completely incompetent). Only thing he could do is run.

The cop should burn for this - the guy was no immediate threat with his back turned. Hope he enjoys his butt-buddies for that stupidity!

Since your already cop bashing by post #2, and did not even bother to introduce yourself to us or give any idea to your background or experience to justify such statements, I doubt you are interested, but here is a little example of why your apparent belief that because the drunk and narcotic impaired and possessing individual fleeing from the cops was not a threat and did not APPEAR to have a weapon may still be considered a threat...under other circumstances.

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/march-2010/daily-planet---march-11-2010/#clip275641

For the record, i think it was a bad shoot. However, based on my experience and training, I think the guy committed the cardinal sin of placing his finger on the trigger before "consciously making the decision to fire." Now, what he testified to after that is a whole nother matter.

Hence what I interpret to be the "OH SHIIIT" reaction of quickly placing the gun back in the holster. i have no way of knowing this, but after watching hundreds of hours of police shooting videos, i think he did not mean to fire. I could be wrong of course.

However, that being said, there is a lot more that goes into critiquing this video then simply saying the guy was not a threat.

In the end, it does not matter what the guy was, it is what a reasonable person would interpret at that time under those conditions. Apparently, the jury did not find it reasonable to consider the man a threat to the officer that fired.

i agree he was not a threat; however, I can see what may have happened on a couple of different levels.

 

[dzelenka]

Interesting video.

 

[jemayeux]

The cop can really say now, I am afraid for my life.

Barney Fife is about to find out what a real bully is.

 

[radney]

Since your already cop bashing by post #2, and did not even bother to introduce yourself to us or give any idea to your background or experience to justify such statements, I doubt you are interested, but here is a little example of why your apparent belief that because the drunk and narcotic impaired and possessing individual fleeing from the cops was not a threat and did not APPEAR to have a weapon may still be considered a threat...under other circumstances.

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/march-2010/daily-planet---march-11-2010/#clip275641

For the record, i think it was a bad shoot. However, based on my experience and training, I think the guy committed the cardinal sin of placing his finger on the trigger before "consciously making the decision to fire." Now, what he testified to after that is a whole nother matter.

Hence what I interpret to be the "OH SHIIIT" reaction of quickly placing the gun back in the holster. i have no way of knowing this, but after watching hundreds of hours of police shooting videos, i think he did not mean to fire. I could be wrong of course.

However, that being said, there is a lot more that goes into critiquing this video then simply saying the guy was not a threat.

In the end, it does not matter what the guy was, it is what a reasonable person would interpret at that time under those conditions. Apparently, the jury did not find it reasonable to consider the man a threat to the officer that fired.

i agree he was not a threat; however, I can see what may have happened on a couple of different levels.

I'm an Army vet. Did Afghanistan back near the beginning. And I'm not bashing cops, just bashing that guy. I have quite a few friends who are officers. However, he deserves what he gets for this move - can't see any reason why he should pull the trigger. Looks like a pure ego trip to me and he thought he could bs his way out.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I'm an Army vet. Did Afghanistan back near the beginning. And I'm not bashing cops, just bashing that guy. I have quite a few friends who are officers. However, he deserves what he gets for this move - can't see any reason why he should pull the trigger. Looks like a pure ego trip to me and he thought he could bs his way out.

I hear ya.

I have plenty of friends with vaginas, but that does not mean I know how to cook.

Your statements seemed pretty critical for a situation that you have no first hand knowledge of. You are getting all your info from a small news article. hardly enough to convict or exonerate. Furthermore, you do not even have the first hand anecdotal experience to make judgments about the general subject of officer involved shootings.

While your experience in Astan is noble and does give some insight, your ROE and LEO ROE are completely different as I am sure you are aware.

Just saying.

I still think it was a bad shoot, but I do not think the guy is a murdering sociopath like some people are alluding to.






And welcome to the site.

 

[radney]

You're right, I've had first-hand experience in much more dangerous situations. And I got my info from the video - film doesn't lie. And you've got to be kidding that somehow you think only "cops" are qualified to pass judgment here - please. Like its some rare and traumatic experience to be a LEO. I've been through much worse.

And an anecdote is a story - I don't have first-hand storytelling experience? What?

The guy is paralyzed now because of this cop's over-aggression and poor judgment - this cop should certainly pay for this. This guy was not an immediate threat and he was shot anyway by a trigger-happy jerk.

 

[my-rifle]

You're right, I've had first-hand experience in much more dangerous situations. And I got my info from the video - film doesn't lie. And you've got to be kidding that somehow you think only "cops" are qualified to pass judgment here - please. Like its some rare and traumatic experience to be a LEO. I've been through much worse.

And an anecdote is a story - I don't have first-hand storytelling experience? What?

The guy is paralyzed now because of this cop's over-aggression and poor judgment - this cop should certainly pay for this. This guy was not an immediate threat and he was shot anyway by a trigger-happy jerk.

I think it's probable that as was stated above this was probably an accidental shooting. The cop should have used that as his defense and apologized to the guy. If that was the case he was guilty of a careless mistake made in the heat of a stressful situation which resulted in a catastrophic injury to an innocent person. Not an ego trip. Not a small man trying to be a big man. Just a terribly tragic mistake that could have gone either way - if only the shooter had been more experienced and better at handling stress and fear.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

You're right, I've had first-hand experience in much more dangerous situations. And I got my info from the video - film doesn't lie. And you've got to be kidding that somehow you think only "cops" are qualified to pass judgment here - please. Like its some rare and traumatic experience to be a LEO. I've been through much worse.

And an anecdote is a story - I don't have first-hand storytelling experience? What?

The guy is paralyzed now because of this cop's over-aggression and poor judgment - this cop should certainly pay for this. This guy was not an immediate threat and he was shot anyway by a trigger-happy jerk.

Nevermind. Should have known better. My fault

Video does not lie, but it is a snapshot in time and obviously does not tell the whole story, though it is apparent here that is not what you are concerned with.

Carryon HSLD.

 

[my-rifle]

All rancor aside I'm very glad we had this discussion. My opinion of the cop went from a pretty bad knee-jerk resentment to an understanding that it may have been an accident. Thanks for everyone who chewed this one over with me.

 

[radney]

Nevermind. Should have known better. My fault

Video does not lie, but it is a snapshot in time and obviously does not tell the whole story, though it is apparent here that is not what you are concerned with.

Carryon HSLD.

What happened before is immaterial - though it is a snapshot deadly force should only be used when your safety is threatened and at that moment the rider was not an immediate threat. What happened prior to the video should not in any way dictate or change whether or not the right to use deadly force is appropriate.

No hard feelings here - I think everyone agrees that this was certainly a huge mistake on the officer's part (which the justice system shall punish him for).

And nice use of the ole military jargon, haven't heard HSLD in a long time.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

What happened before is immaterial - though it is a snapshot deadly force should only be used when your safety is threatened and at that moment the rider was not an immediate threat. What happened prior to the video should not in any way dictate or change whether or not the right to use deadly force is appropriate.

No hard feelings here - I think everyone agrees that this was certainly a huge mistake on the officer's part (which the justice system shall punish him for).

And nice use of the ole military jargon, haven't heard HSLD in a long time.

Actually, what happened prior plays a HUGE part into if the individual is considered a threat.

If you were jaywalking immediately before I stop you, I am probably not viewing you as a huge threat.

however, if you were throwing body parts out your window immediately prior to me stopping you, by view of you as a threat is a little different.

 

[blackened1313]

If their back is to you with no seen weapon straddling a parked motorcycle and in full view of the spotlight and dash cam while you are already drawn on him then no, he could not threaten your life (unless you really are a completely incompetent). Only thing he could do is run.

this is a ridiculous statement. With his back to the officer, wearing a jacket, he could of had a gun in a shoulder rig and shot him thru the jacket. You wouldnt see anything except the back of his elbow and shoulder. But please do not think I am taking the officers side on this. I am just stating that alot of crazy s*** can happen very quickly. 10 seconds can be an eternity. He probably should have pulled over immediately though. At one point the officer almost ran into the guy at a stop sign.

 

[radney]

Actually, what happened prior plays a HUGE part into if the individual is considered a threat.

If you were jaywalking immediately before I stop you, I am probably not viewing you as a huge threat.

however, if you were throwing body parts out your window immediately prior to me stopping you, by view of you as a threat is a little different.

You're weapon is drawn and pointed regardless of what happened prior in this case right? What happened prior is, like I said, immaterial at that point. What happens while your weapon is drawn is different and nothing justified the shot.

You keep misinterpreting what we're arguing about here. I'm saying the shot, you keep saying the threat or actions prior. What happens before determines whether you draw your weapon, what happens after your drawn determines whether you shoot. And regardless, with your weapon drawn and his back to you and blinded by a spotlight he is not an immediate threat - there being a difference between the immediate and the potential.

Of course what someone did prior would change the way you view a suspect - so? I'm saying it doesn't change what justifies a shot.

 

[radney]

this is a ridiculous statement. With his back to the officer, wearing a jacket, he could of had a gun in a shoulder rig and shot him thru the jacket. You wouldnt see anything except the back of his elbow and shoulder. But please do not think I am taking the officers side on this. I am just stating that alot of crazy s*** can happen very quickly. 10 seconds can be an eternity. He probably should have pulled over immediately though. At one point the officer almost ran into the guy at a stop sign.

You implying that someone could shoot the armed and aimed officer through his jacket and behind him under his arm sounds more ridiculous to me. The cop had every reason to draw his weapon here and consider the guy potentially dangerous, but had no reason to shoot.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

You're weapon is drawn and pointed regardless of what happened prior in this case right? What happened prior is, like I said, immaterial at that point. What happens while your weapon is drawn is different and nothing justified the shot.

You keep misinterpreting what we're arguing about here. I'm saying the shot, you keep saying the threat or actions prior. What happens before determines whether you draw your weapon, what happens after your drawn determines whether you shoot. And regardless, with your weapon drawn and his back to you and blinded by a spotlight he is not an immediate threat - there being a difference between the immediate and the potential.

Of course what someone did prior would change the way you view a suspect - so? I'm saying it doesn't change what justifies a shot.

I agree with you except for this little potential tactical blunder...BOLD

You have no way of knowing that. i agree the shot if intentional was not warranted. However, just because (see your statement bolded above) does not mean the guy is not a threat. It means he is an unknown threat.

 

[radney]

I agree with you except for this little potential tactical blunder...BOLD

You have no way of knowing that. i agree the shot if intentional was not warranted. However, just because (see your statement bolded above) does not mean the guy is not a threat. It means he is an unknown threat.

That's why I stated immediate and potential - there's a difference. .