The real reason you should wear your seatbelt!

[Doc]

especially if

1) you're african american
2) you're driving in s. carolina


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeT_oSLtI-o

So this police officer has been charged with assault and was fired. Don't need guys like him out there protecting and serving. .

[MTcatfan]

This one is bad, probably the worst one of these I have ever seen. I mean to be a police officer and you apparently ASSUME all black people are trying to kill you, is just pathetic. I mean the cop wasn't even close enough to the guy to be even a little bit afraid of him. I hope this guy goes to jail for a long, long time. The article I saw had a quote from the cops lawyer saying the video will prove that the man was "aggressively" diving back in the car so the shooting was justified. All I saw was a dude pat his butt, realize his wallet is in his vehicle, turn to get said wallet and ends up getting shot.

[suncat05]

Gotta wait until the guy displays a weapon. Period. Cop 101 class.

I can see him drawing his duty weapon when the guy turned around and went into his car. Officer safety issue. But then too, a little communication would be good too, like "Officer, my license is inside the car on the front seat"...........any kind of intelligent communication by either party would have kept this incident from happening the way it did.

They both were wrong in the way they acted.

[MTcatfan]

A normal person doesn't even think about it when they don't have their wallet in their pocket in their car, they just have it in the car. There is no fault there for the guy going back in to vehicle for wallet. I mean he pats his butt and INSTANTLY ducks back in vehicle. Only a cop that is being hyper sensitive in a situation that doesn't require being hyper sensitive(middle of day, lots of witnesses, single passenger) reacts to the drivers actions with deadly force.

[Darrell KSR]

Watch this video. I will have some comments on it later.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4kyiHSY2w

[Darrell KSR]

A normal person doesn't even think about it when they don't have their wallet in their pocket in their car, they just have it in the car. There is no fault there for the guy going back in to vehicle for wallet. I mean he pats his butt and INSTANTLY ducks back in vehicle. Only a cop that is being hyper sensitive in a situation that doesn't require being hyper sensitive(middle of day, lots of witnesses, single passenger) reacts to the drivers actions with deadly force.

Man...you're probably right--but how in the world can people NOT think about what their actions will look like to a police officer before they take them? I don't get it.

I've had two traffic stops where I had a concealed weapon in my car. Hands firmly on top of the steering wheel where the officer could see it, and communicated that I had a weapon (and a permit) prior to taking any action or making any move. (Doesn't matter that I had a weapon; I'd do the same thing without one. And I'm under no legal obligation to tell him--at least in my state. But I will every time. Take steps to reduce concern.)

Officer has a family he's trying to get home to that evening. One slack moment, and he doesn't. He has to be ever-vigilant.

None of this excuses what this police officer did, who will be losing his badge and his liberty, IMO. I'm speaking more to the recklessness of a citizen not thinking about their actions producing consequences.

I know you're right. But how?

I've already said I'm not defending the police officer, and I'm not. But I watched the video several times, and I can see--being hypersensitive--where the officer could have believed his life was threatened with those actions. Suncat is right--a police officer would have to wait until he saw a weapon in that instance. By then, it might be too late, of course. But that is the life the police officer chose, and the rules they have to live by. So I do not defend his actions, as they are indefensible in that regard.

But people who think that the victim here could not have pulled a .38 revolver out of his car with those actions and shoot the officer are fooling themselves. The same action the victim took to retrieve his license he could have taken to retrieve a weapon. If I were an officer, my weapon would have been drawn if he was black, white, green, or orange, male or female. I don't like seeing his hands disappear without him telling me exactly what he is doing, and why. And even then, my hand is on my weapon ready to draw.

This officer went further than that. But guys--respect your own lives, if you don't respect the officer's profession and the danger he is in daily. Don't put them in that position. If you don't think anything about your actions--start. Do not put your life in jeopardy with an officer who might be hypersensitive.

Last question here. Does anyone think the officer intended to shoot an unarmed man? Or did he just "blow it" with his hypersensitivity?

If you think he intended to shoot an unarmed man, this doesn't apply--wouldn't matter what the victim did. But many of us will probably agree that the officer was just hypersensitive and shouldn't have been.

Don't put yourself in danger.

[dan_bgblue]

Darrell you are spot on and I agree with all your thoughts.

Last time I was stopped by an officer, I rolled down the windows on both sides of the truck, and took my wallet out of my pocket and tossed it on the dash before he ever got out of his vehicle. Then I sat there with both hands on the steering wheel and waited for him. I did not want to make him any more wary than he already had to be

[Doc]

Gotta wait until the guy displays a weapon. Period. Cop 101 class.

I can see him drawing his duty weapon when the guy turned around and went into his car. Officer safety issue. But then too, a little communication would be good too, like "Officer, my license is inside the car on the front seat"...........any kind of intelligent communication by either party would have kept this incident from happening the way it did.

They both were wrong in the way they acted.


I'll disagree. Both were not wrong. The police officer told him to get his insurance and his drivers license. That is what he was doing. What, he did it too fast? Perhaps the guy should have asked "Why?" Maybe "copped an attitude". At least then there would have been a reason to shoot the guy. Lets say that is a 50 year old grandmother. You think the cop puts 6 rounds into her?

Look, I respect that police officers have a dangerous job. They don't know who is doing what and who is out to kill them. HOWEVER you don't tell somebody to do something then shoot them for doing it. Should the guy have said my wallet is in the car? Sure. But not doing so does not make it in any way his fault. He bears no fault in this what so ever.

[Doc]

Watch this video. I will have some comments on it later.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4kyiHSY2w


That is an execution.

[Doc]

Man...you're probably right--but how in the world can people NOT think about what their actions will look like to a police officer before they take them? I don't get it.

I've had two traffic stops where I had a concealed weapon in my car. Hands firmly on top of the steering wheel where the officer could see it, and communicated that I had a weapon (and a permit) prior to taking any action or making any move. (Doesn't matter that I had a weapon; I'd do the same thing without one. And I'm under no legal obligation to tell him--at least in my state. But I will every time. Take steps to reduce concern.)

Officer has a family he's trying to get home to that evening. One slack moment, and he doesn't. He has to be ever-vigilant.

None of this excuses what this police officer did, who will be losing his badge and his liberty, IMO. I'm speaking more to the recklessness of a citizen not thinking about their actions producing consequences.

I know you're right. But how?

I've already said I'm not defending the police officer, and I'm not. But I watched the video several times, and I can see--being hypersensitive--where the officer could have believed his life was threatened with those actions. Suncat is right--a police officer would have to wait until he saw a weapon in that instance. By then, it might be too late, of course. But that is the life the police officer chose, and the rules they have to live by. So I do not defend his actions, as they are indefensible in that regard.

But people who think that the victim here could not have pulled a .38 revolver out of his car with those actions and shoot the officer are fooling themselves. The same action the victim took to retrieve his license he could have taken to retrieve a weapon. If I were an officer, my weapon would have been drawn if he was black, white, green, or orange, male or female. I don't like seeing his hands disappear without him telling me exactly what he is doing, and why. And even then, my hand is on my weapon ready to draw.

This officer went further than that. But guys--respect your own lives, if you don't respect the officer's profession and the danger he is in daily. Don't put them in that position. If you don't think anything about your actions--start. Do not put your life in jeopardy with an officer who might be hypersensitive.

Last question here. Does anyone think the officer intended to shoot an unarmed man? Or did he just "blow it" with his hypersensitivity?

If you think he intended to shoot an unarmed man, this doesn't apply--wouldn't matter what the victim did. But many of us will probably agree that the officer was just hypersensitive and shouldn't have been.

Don't put yourself in danger.

First. you're not an average person. I tend to think you are a bit more intelligent than average joe citizen. Any time I'm stopped I try to take the officer point of view and make sure I do NOTHING that would concern him. I try to be courteous and nonthreatening because I understand its a dangerous job. However not everybody thinks that way. Guy gets pulled over and told what to do, so he does it. Were I in the officers shoes, I too would have been on alert just like every other stop. I'd have my hand on my weapon and senses tuned in but you can't do what he did. Sure, the victim could have pulled out a gun...or the victim could have pulled his 1 year old baby out of the front seat! Problem is the officer didn't know and before you start throwing lead around, you probably should know.

Did he intend to shoot an unarmed man? I don't believe so. But I counter with two other questions. Did he shoot an unarmed man? and would you what that officer stopping you?

[CitizenBBN]

This is far from funny, a guy is shot (note to self, carry a bigger caliber and shoot better than the officer b/c this guy was far from stopped), this officer's life is soon to be in shambles.

But this reminds me of a comic bit on Bob & Tom, advice from Donnie Baker about traffic stops. He suggests officers will appreciate you being quick and responsive so when they ask for your registration you should make a lunging grab for your glovebox. It gets a good laugh, sounds funny, and is very much what happened here and this is not a unique incident.

I'm not defending the officer here, just found it interesting that something that sounds so "ha ha" funny and absurd isn't really so absurd after all.

[KeithKSR]

I'm not convinced the officer will serve any time. What would any reasonable person think when someone encounters a police officer and makes a sudden move to grab something from their car? It is reasonable to think that when encountering an officer and needing to get your license from the car you would inform the officer where the license is and wait for directions to retrieve the license from the vehicle.

Timing is big. When did this happen? In recent weeks officers have been shot by ambush in PA; and in Ferguson, MO this past weekend an officer was shot. Incidents like these are going to make LEOs hypersensitive to potential hazards and possibly overreact.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm not convinced the officer will serve any time. What would any reasonable person think when someone encounters a police officer and makes a sudden move to grab something from their car? It is reasonable to think that when encountering an officer and needing to get your license from the car you would inform the officer where the license is and wait for directions to retrieve the license from the vehicle.

Timing is big. When did this happen? In recent weeks officers have been shot by ambush in PA; and in Ferguson, MO this past weekend an officer was shot. Incidents like these are going to make LEOs hypersensitive to potential hazards and possibly overreact.

sensitive, and rightly so, but as suncat said it's part of the job description you don't fire till you know they have a gun. yes it's a disadvantage, at times a huge one, but it's pretty clear that goes with the gig.

In many ways a private person has a lot more leeway in self defense. Esp. in things like castle doctrine. Just being in the house defines the threat, but for an officer just reaching back into your car doesn't do so.

The officer needed to be more directed in his orders, but Darrell is completely correct that diving quickly back into your vehicle is about as un-wise as you can get in a traffic stop. Not saying that justifies shooting him, but it definitely would put any officer on a state of high alert and you'd turn around to see a gun pointed in your face.

[suncat05]

Doc, we'll just agree that we disagree on this one. As I stated, better communication by both parties would have kept this from happening.

And the other video.....,yes, you saw the bad guy putting the weapon down, but what you didn't see from the angle shown, and what the other officer behind the suspect saw was that the bad guy had another weapon that he was reaching for and actually had his hand on when both officers shot him.
That suspect intended to kill a law enforcement officer in the lawful commission of his duty. The suspect got what he deserved.
Watch that video closely Doc. Look at his right hand as he hits the ground.
Also, watch which officer shot first.

[Darrell KSR]

Suncat is right.

Doc, I had the same thought you had when I saw the video. In fact, I had to watch it several times to notice, and had to have the gun pointed out. The execution that was about to take place was of the police officer, who exercised self-defense in eliminating the criminal who was about to shoot him with the pistol that he had hidden in the small of his back.

I chose that for a reason. While it is graphic in nature (I actually had been told it was a training video, but I don't know for sure), it points out the difference in what the police officer sees, due to their training, and what we assume, based on our own.

We assumed the police officer shot and killed a man who was cooperating and putting down his weapon. Instead, the police officer shot and killed a man who was about to shoot him.

Again, I am not defending the police officer who shot the man who ducked into his car to retrieve his license. They chose the job of putting their lives on the line and waiting, perhaps too late, until the suspect shows a weapon before they have the right to defend themselves. This police officer did not do that, and he must suffer all the consequences. But my point is that we are foolish indeed if we assume that our actions do not create situations that can cause this. And further, that we are foolish if we assume that a person ducking into a car is necessarily retrieving his license. The police officer should have drawn his weapon, taken cover, and done everything short of pulling the trigger.

If we can't even see (I couldn't, until I was shown) a suspect pulling a pistol out of his waistband, who is facing the camera when he does it, then for sure we can't see a suspect pulling a pistol out of the floorboard of his car as he disappears into it.

Hypersensitive? Probably. But with reason? Yes. They are trained to look for things that we simply are not trained to look for, and that helps keep them coming home to their family at night.

My question about whether the officer intended to shoot an unarmed man was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only--to show that, if you believe (as we all do here), he had no such intention--then the question is, "how?" How did the unarmed man get shot?

It's clear to me that it was because you had a hypersensitive police officer who was given reason to believe his life was in danger. You can't assume he was retrieving a license, just as you couldn't assume putting down a rifle meant the suspect was cooperating in the other video.


That is an execution.


Doc, we'll just agree that we disagree on this one. As I stated, better communication by both parties would have kept this from happening.

And the other video.....,yes, you saw the bad guy putting the weapon down, but what you didn't see from the angle shown, and what the other officer behind the suspect saw was that the bad guy had another weapon that he was reaching for and actually had his hand on when both officers shot him.
That suspect intended to kill a law enforcement officer in the lawful commission of his duty. The suspect got what he deserved.
Watch that video closely Doc. Look at his right hand as he hits the ground.
Also, watch which officer shot first.

[UKHistory]

An innocent person complying with an officer might do exactly what the driver did. This was broad day light in front of other people at gas station/convenient store.

This was not on a dark secluded road. The officer said that he stopped the man because his seat belt was not on. It was not an issue of a the cop hearing about a shooter or robber in a truck that matched the description.

That poor man who got shot for not doing anything. I am white and terrified of the police. I won't make a move without talking to the officer first because I know the America that I love is basically dead. We live in a facist state where we have thugs on the street and enough thug like Barney Fife's wearing a badge who get off on seach and destroy and not serve and protect.

Yes there are good police and other law enforcement officers. But too many (one is too many) who are ready to shoot innocent American citizens. This is a text book example of an officer overreacting.

I feel bad for the officer for doing his job poorly. But if that officer shot a friend or loved one of yours under the same circumstances I damn well feel certain you would want their badge and some blood.


I'm not convinced the officer will serve any time. What would any reasonable person think when someone encounters a police officer and makes a sudden move to grab something from their car? It is reasonable to think that when encountering an officer and needing to get your license from the car you would inform the officer where the license is and wait for directions to retrieve the license from the vehicle.

Timing is big. When did this happen? In recent weeks officers have been shot by ambush in PA; and in Ferguson, MO this past weekend an officer was shot. Incidents like these are going to make LEOs hypersensitive to potential hazards and possibly overreact.

[MTcatfan]

Count me in UKHistory and Doc's corner on that one, and I guess nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise. A traffic stop in broad daylight, witnesses abound, 1 person in vehicle, should never be treated like a 3am, middle of know where, 4 people in the car traffic stop, and that to me is how it was handled. I have been pulled over, on Interstate, at 10 at night, put hands on wheel, wallet just happened to be on dash, so I got my license, then the office approached and I gave him my license. Well I completely forgot my insurance and registration, so as soon as he asked for it, I immediately turned away from him, leaned over to the jockey box, and went to grab those. It was just a quick reaction to the officer asking me for something I forgot, and me being a little nervous and a bit embarrassed I forget. If it was the cop in that video he would probably have shot me because it was a sudden and quick movement to my jockey box, and I find that disturbing and always will. When police view citizens as criminals the instant they pull them over, you end up with situations like the original video. Seems to me that we have to many gung ho cops that think everyone is guilty til proven innocent so they treat people in a disrespectful manner from the get go, and this is what happened imho this time.


In my instance, luckily I got a cool sheriffs officer, who was a Florida fan, he noticed my UK plates, asked me about the UK football game that day, we discussed the debacle of a Florida game that day, may have been the Georgia Southern loss day, and he told me to slow down and let me off the hook.

[suncat05]

History, MTcatfan & Doc........you guys are not wrong about how you feel about this. There isn't a valid defense for what the South Carolina Trooper did. He overreacted to what he was presented with. Now, when that guy turned and went inside his car, the officer had every right to draw his weapon and point it at the guy. It was a sudden, furtive movement that could have meant trouble for the officer IF THERE HAD BEEN A GUN. But there was no gun, and it's clear the officer's actions were not correct or called for. So the shooting is clearly wrong.
I still contend that both parties should have communicated with each other better and this would never have happened. I thought the Trooper did a terrible job of communicating with the driver to begin with, and then the driver made it worse with his sudden furtive movement.
And as for the Trooper, you have to see a weapon displayed before you can use deadly force against a citizen. That is taught ad naseum in Cop 101 and when you get into the Use of Force Matrix in Legal 1, 2, & 3(as it is taught here in Florida........I cannot speak to any other state's standards).

[Doc]

Suncat is right.

Doc, I had the same thought you had when I saw the video. In fact, I had to watch it several times to notice, and had to have the gun pointed out. The execution that was about to take place was of the police officer, who exercised self-defense in eliminating the criminal who was about to shoot him with the pistol that he had hidden in the small of his back.

I chose that for a reason. While it is graphic in nature (I actually had been told it was a training video, but I don't know for sure), it points out the difference in what the police officer sees, due to their training, and what we assume, based on our own.

We assumed the police officer shot and killed a man who was cooperating and putting down his weapon. Instead, the police officer shot and killed a man who was about to shoot him.

Again, I am not defending the police officer who shot the man who ducked into his car to retrieve his license. They chose the job of putting their lives on the line and waiting, perhaps too late, until the suspect shows a weapon before they have the right to defend themselves. This police officer did not do that, and he must suffer all the consequences. But my point is that we are foolish indeed if we assume that our actions do not create situations that can cause this. And further, that we are foolish if we assume that a person ducking into a car is necessarily retrieving his license. The police officer should have drawn his weapon, taken cover, and done everything short of pulling the trigger.

If we can't even see (I couldn't, until I was shown) a suspect pulling a pistol out of his waistband, who is facing the camera when he does it, then for sure we can't see a suspect pulling a pistol out of the floorboard of his car as he disappears into it.

Hypersensitive? Probably. But with reason? Yes. They are trained to look for things that we simply are not trained to look for, and that helps keep them coming home to their family at night.

My question about whether the officer intended to shoot an unarmed man was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only--to show that, if you believe (as we all do here), he had no such intention--then the question is, "how?" How did the unarmed man get shot?

It's clear to me that it was because you had a hypersensitive police officer who was given reason to believe his life was in danger. You can't assume he was retrieving a license, just as you couldn't assume putting down a rifle meant the suspect was cooperating in the other video.


I totally agree. The officer is the TRAINED one. Before he shoots he needs to be 100% sure there is a real threat. Not 51%, not 90%, not 99%. I'm not trained to see a gun hence I didn't see it. Its not my job. I'm not trained. I'm sure there are things in the law that you would see that I would miss. Likewise you bring your dog or cat to me and there are obvious things I would see that would indicate there is a problem that you would not see because I'm trained to see them. Its like that in any profession. Its why I don't open up the belly of every vomiting cat I see. Its also why you don't go to trial for every case you have. Some might say that as an officer you don't get to make mistakes because it could cost you your life. Well here you have a mistake that could have cost somebody else their life.

[Doc]

History, MTcatfan & Doc........you guys are not wrong about how you feel about this. There isn't a valid defense for what the South Carolina Trooper did. He overreacted to what he was presented with. Now, when that guy turned and went inside his car, the officer had every right to draw his weapon and point it at the guy. It was a sudden, furtive movement that could have meant trouble for the officer IF THERE HAD BEEN A GUN. But there was no gun, and it's clear the officer's actions were not correct or called for. So the shooting is clearly wrong.
I still contend that both parties should have communicated with each other better and this would never have happened. I thought the Trooper did a terrible job of communicating with the driver to begin with, and then the driver made it worse with his sudden furtive movement.
And as for the Trooper, you have to see a weapon displayed before you can use deadly force against a citizen. That is taught ad naseum in Cop 101 and when you get into the Use of Force Matrix in Legal 1, 2, & 3(as it is taught here in Florida........I cannot speak to any other state's standards).


I don't disagree with you in any way. I just don't believe the victim is "at fault". Could he have done something different? Sure but that is different than being at fault. Odds are he doesn't get pulled over every day and isn't sure what he is suppose to do. I mean he is getting out of his truck and up pulls an officer. I'm sure the guy didn't think he did anything and in his mind he isn't a "bad guy" so what have I got to worry about? He wants my ID, I'll grab it. Of course from the officers point of view it looks different but the officers is the professional. He makes hundreds of stops and is the one who is suppose to be in control of the situation and have his wits about him. Should there have been better communications on both sides? YES but that is the officers fault, not the victims. ITS THE OFFICER WHO IS IN CHARGE. Police 101, right?

[UKHistory]

The officer drawing his weapon with the abrupt movment by the driver is prudent. At the crime and punishment museum they have a video game scenarios where the person like me is holding a weapon and we are watching a life size video image of real people in real situations. We get to play at being a police man and of couse we also know something is going to go down.

Communication is always the key to resolving many problems and viewpoints.

In this video the driver was very quick to comply with the officer. The driver had done nothing wrong (safety belt aside) and as such he reacted like an innocent person would. I wish nothing had happened but the officer was the one in the wrong. Maybe we should all have training to know how to better respond to stopping citizens and being stopped. But the citizen moved quickly to obey; it might have looked provocative but he didn't give an attitude and even apologized to the man who shot him.

In a situation like this the citizen can't be expected to do any more than follow instructions which he did.

Horrible situation. We need that officer in my office dealing with poor performing grantees (unarmed of course) and not serving as a police officer.


History, MTcatfan & Doc........you guys are not wrong about how you feel about this. There isn't a valid defense for what the South Carolina Trooper did. He overreacted to what he was presented with. Now, when that guy turned and went inside his car, the officer had every right to draw his weapon and point it at the guy. It was a sudden, furtive movement that could have meant trouble for the officer IF THERE HAD BEEN A GUN. But there was no gun, and it's clear the officer's actions were not correct or called for. So the shooting is clearly wrong.
I still contend that both parties should have communicated with each other better and this would never have happened. I thought the Trooper did a terrible job of communicating with the driver to begin with, and then the driver made it worse with his sudden furtive movement.
And as for the Trooper, you have to see a weapon displayed before you can use deadly force against a citizen. That is taught ad naseum in Cop 101 and when you get into the Use of Force Matrix in Legal 1, 2, & 3(as it is taught here in Florida........I cannot speak to any other state's standards).

[KeithKSR]

I don't disagree with you in any way. I just don't believe the victim is "at fault". Could he have done something different? Sure but that is different than being at fault. Odds are he doesn't get pulled over every day and isn't sure what he is suppose to do. I mean he is getting out of his truck and up pulls an officer. I'm sure the guy didn't think he did anything and in his mind he isn't a "bad guy" so what have I got to worry about? He wants my ID, I'll grab it. Of course from the officers point of view it looks different but the officers is the professional. He makes hundreds of stops and is the one who is suppose to be in control of the situation and have his wits about him. Should there have been better communications on both sides? YES but that is the officers fault, not the victims. ITS THE OFFICER WHO IS IN CHARGE. Police 101, right?

The victim does deserve some of the blame. It is I'll-advised and foolish to make a quick sudden move without communicating with the officer in that situation. All it took was an "Officer, my license is In the car," to prevent the incident. Why dive into the car or make the really suspicious quick,move?

[MTcatfan]

The victim does deserve some of the blame. It is I'll-advised and foolish to make a quick sudden move without communicating with the officer in that situation. All it took was an "Officer, my license is In the car," to prevent the incident. Why dive into the car or make the really suspicious quick,move?


What situation? A routine traffic stop in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses? Why dive into the car or make a suspicious quick move, well he pats his butt, realizes his wallet is in the car and goes after it, that plain and simple and only a police officer with some sort of preconceived bias towards the driver reacts the way the officer reacts. I hate to say it but only someone that is predisposed to wanting to absolve the police officer of responsibility looks at the move the guy made as suspicious or a dive into the car. I have the utmost respect for the police, I have never been arrested in my life, and I have had quite a bit of contact with police in a personal matter with a child of mine and through work, and even as a minority I have always been treated with the utmost respect by law enforcement, therefore I have no bones to pick with law enforcement, so I looked at this video through the prism of impartiality, and I saw nothing suspicious being done by the driver, and I saw what could only be described as a rogue police officer shoot first and ask questions later. I only see a police officer rush the victim and open fire before the police officer has a chance to even see the victims intentions. I see a police officer that did not wait to see a weapon open fire on an unarmed man. I see no fault on the victims part.

[CitizenBBN]

I hate to say it but only someone that is predisposed to wanting to absolve the police officer of responsibility looks at the move the guy made as suspicious or a dive into the car.

I in no way am defending this guy pulling the trigger, but I have to strongly disagree with the position that reaching back into your car in a traffic stop isn't "suspicious".

On the contrary, sudden moves in and around the vehicle are the prototype for criminal behavior that will result in an attack on an officer. It's the very definition of "suspicious" both in LEO training and in reality. In the Ky CCDW class we do a section on traffic stops and the main point being reiterated (and the class was produced by the State Police) is to not do exactly what he did: suddenly reach around in your vehicle.

I know he was just trying to do as the officer asked, and it wasn't intentionally aggressive or suspicious behavior, but I'm befuddled how anyone can look at someone suddenly reaching into their car on a traffic stop and not see it as disconcerting for the officer. Enough to justify shooting the guy? No, of course not. Enough to have your weapon either ready to draw or drawn? Yes.

And no that's not me reaching to defend the LEO. I have a notorious dislike of authority and a really strong sense of civil rights, but I'm also a pragmatist and it's beyond common sense that when in a traffic stop situation you keep your hands visible and don't lunge into your vehicle or glovebox, etc. it's so much the case that it's taught in traffic/driving classes throughout the country.

It's most definitely "suspicious", and In the end I can pretty much prove it. I bet there isn't a driver's ed manual in the country that doesn't tell you to keep your hands visible (or some version thereof) in a traffic stop. I just checked Kentucky's for giggles (and to get some idea if I was just off base), it's on page 47.

That doesn't excuse this guy being shot, clearly way over the line, and he was just trying to do as the officer asked, but it was the literal textbook definition of 'suspicious behavior', albeit unintentionally so.

[Doc]

Were I the officer I would have been concerned about the abruptness of the move, no question but to BLAME the victim is ridiculous. IMO it's like blaming the rape victim because she dressed provocatively! It's justification for a horrible decision on the officers part. The office is in charge. He is the one who does this for a living and has experience. He has supposedly been trained on how to pull people over and how to communicate. The victim has not. The officer's job, repeat, job is to protect and serve the citizens. If that includes pulling people over then you do so in a manner to insure their safety and communicate effectively. It's not the suspects job or responsibility to think for the officer. He did what he was told to do. Granted it wasn't in a normal manner for most people but it was for him. He isn't trained on how to do this. Perhaps the officer, the professional who's job it is, the train individual, is the one who screwed up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc]

I in no way am defending this guy pulling the trigger, but I have to strongly disagree with the position that reaching back into your car in a traffic stop isn't "suspicious".

On the contrary, sudden moves in and around the vehicle are the prototype for criminal behavior that will result in an attack on an officer. It's the very definition of "suspicious" both in LEO training and in reality. In the Ky CCDW class we do a section on traffic stops and the main point being reiterated (and the class was produced by the State Police) is to not do exactly what he did: suddenly reach around in your vehicle.

I know he was just trying to do as the officer asked, and it wasn't intentionally aggressive or suspicious behavior, but I'm befuddled how anyone can look at someone suddenly reaching into their car on a traffic stop and not see it as disconcerting for the officer. Enough to justify shooting the guy? No, of course not. Enough to have your weapon either ready to draw or drawn? Yes.

And no that's not me reaching to defend the LEO. I have a notorious dislike of authority and a really strong sense of civil rights, but I'm also a pragmatist and it's beyond common sense that when in a traffic stop situation you keep your hands visible and don't lunge into your vehicle or glovebox, etc. it's so much the case that it's taught in traffic/driving classes throughout the country.

It's most definitely "suspicious", and In the end I can pretty much prove it. I bet there isn't a driver's ed manual in the country that doesn't tell you to keep your hands visible (or some version thereof) in a traffic stop. I just checked Kentucky's for giggles (and to get some idea if I was just off base), it's on page 47.

That doesn't excuse this guy being shot, clearly way over the line, and he was just trying to do as the officer asked, but it was the literal textbook definition of 'suspicious behavior', albeit unintentionally so.

It was suspicious. I think most would agree. There is a difference between acting or doing something suspicious and being at fault/to blame.

As for the drivers manual, the driver was getting out of the car. He wasn't pulled over in the sense of it was a traffic stop. He stopped at the convenient store and was exiting his car when the officer drove up. I suspect he was unaware he was getting stopped as he was exiting the car so "hands on the wheel" does not come into play


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTcatfan]

So in my example, when I suddenly reached for the glove box because the officer asked for insurance and registration the cop would have been justified in shooting me because I made a suspicious sudden move to open something that could have had a gun in it? I mean I did not tell the cop what I was doing, it was just a reaction I had when he asked the question.


Again to me the ONLY way someone gets shot like the guy in the video is if the cop is PREDISPOSED to be looking for trouble. I just can't blame the victim, he is NOT the one with HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS of training on how to do his job, and within that training lots of training on how to properly perform a traffic stop, in broad daylight, with witnesses at a convenience store, without a shooting occurring.

Now take the victim, i don't know how it is in SC, but in Montana you take drivers ed as a teenager, then at the end of drivers training you take the driving test and the written test, then nary a training minute happens after that. I am 42, and I took drivers ed when I was 14, so that is the last of my formal drivers training. Heck if it wasn't for my 2 teenagers who both went to drivers ed the last two years I would not have seen a driver training manual since I was 14.

So in a traffic stop who should act like a seasoned veteran and who should be a little nervous and not well trained on the nuances of a traffic stop?

[UKHistory]

Respectfully unarmed citizens who are just living are not to blame if someone shoots them. Abused spouses, rape victims, poorly treated employees all could have done something to avoid being mistreated or harmed.

But the fact remains that the police officer firing his gun, the abusive spouse, the rapist, and the overly angry boss are the ones at fault.


The victim does deserve some of the blame. It is I'll-advised and foolish to make a quick sudden move without communicating with the officer in that situation. All it took was an "Officer, my license is In the car," to prevent the incident. Why dive into the car or make the really suspicious quick,move?

[UKHistory]

The driver having already being out of the car when the officer came up--as opposed to being pulled over and remaining in the car is another part of how the scenario changed.

Come to think of it the situation in South Carolina is eerily similar to Crime and Punishment museum simulation I went through. One of the scenarios an officer stopped a van. The driver, an attractive young woman got out of the van.

Not only was she hauling an armed fugitive in the back who opens the back door and shoot at you. She also pulls again from either the seat or the back of her pants.

One reason the officer may have overreacted in this siutation is a training simulation comparable to the one I participated in.

The fact that the driver was out of his vehicle already had unnerved the officer a little. No excuse and no justification. Placing any blame on the citizen is horrible and counterproductive to keeping the public safe.


It was suspicious. I think most would agree. There is a difference between acting or doing something suspicious and being at fault/to blame.

As for the drivers manual, the driver was getting out of the car. He wasn't pulled over in the sense of it was a traffic stop. He stopped at the convenient store and was exiting his car when the officer drove up. I suspect he was unaware he was getting stopped as he was exiting the car so "hands on the wheel" does not come into play


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CitizenBBN]

Were I the officer I would have been concerned about the abruptness of the move, no question but to BLAME the victim is ridiculous. IMO it's like blaming the rape victim because she dressed provocatively! It's justification for a horrible decision on the officers part.

That's a really strained analogy.

I'm not aware of a single dress code manual or sign on a bar door that says you are liable for your own rape if you dress provocatively. I am aware of 50 state traffic manuals and numerous other state and federal documents, instructional manuals/videos, and guides that say you are to keep your hands visible at all times to an officer at a traffic stop.

He may also have violated the rules by stepping out of his vehicle, but I'm not sure if he was doing that naturally as he was stopped at a gas station, or if he got out in reaction to the officer's approach. But I'm betting most states tell you to not get out of your vehicle when stopped unless instructed. I know Kentucky does. That part is unclear from the video, but is another possible reason for the officer to be suspicious.

Now this guy was in his view following the officer's instructions to get back into his vehicle, which is why I don't "blame" him, but it was no doubt a suspicious move as defined in every state. The miscommunication clearly is a factor here, but it still would have been wise to say "my license is in my car in my wallet, do you want me to get it or do you want to retrieve it?"

But the one that gets me is that saying the move was suspicious or a mistake necessarily somehow justifies the officer's actions. Of course it does not and no one here has taken that position. We have said that it a) was a mistake on his part, and b) would have justified the officer having his weapon ready, but certainly not pulling the trigger.

The officer was clearly wrong to open fire on this person, but that doesn't change the fact that the person did not follow the proper procedure for a traffic stop and made movements that would have likely made 99% of officers very nervous. Doesn't mean it's his fault for being shot, his actions do NOT justify having been shot, but had he come back up looking at an officer with a drawn or handed weapon I wouldn't have blamed the officer.

[CitizenBBN]

So in my example, when I suddenly reached for the glove box because the officer asked for insurance and registration the cop would have been justified in shooting me because I made a suspicious sudden move to open something that could have had a gun in it? I mean I did not tell the cop what I was doing, it was just a reaction I had when he asked the question.

No, but he would have been justified in taking a stronger defensive posture.

Nothing in this video justified the officer pulling that trigger. There were things this guy did that would have absolutely justified the officer being more prepared to fire than in a routine traffic stop.

As for the "nuances" of a traffic stop, keeping your hands visible for the officer is hardly a "nuance". It's so much a given in society that Bob and Tom made a joke of it. that only works if we all know that such a thing is a really dumb idea. If you don't think that's an issue you don't laugh.

I don't "blame" the victim either. never have. He did NOTHING to justify being SHOT. He did however do something that was absolutely "suspicious" and would have warranted a heightened response or preparedness by the officer. NOT shooting, but being more ready to defend himself.

We have to separate "blame" here, it isn't an absolute. The victim did contribute to the situation through his actions, that doesn't mean he's to blame and the officer isn't. It's not black and white, 0 or 1. Likewise the officer here did have more cause to act as he did than if he just walked up to someone having a sandwich and shot them. Doesn't mean he isn't guilty of wrongdoing, but obviously there are more gradations of this than "he's 100% to blame, he's 100% not to blame."

the officer fired without any clear indication of a weapon, that's his fault and he'll pay mightily for it. Thank goodness the victim is alive and will apparently be OK.

But this is not some "cop goes crazy and shoots innocent bystander" scenario either. The victim and officer both contributed to the eventual circumstances that led to that huge mistake of pulling the trigger. IT took them both doing things wrong to get to that point. Doesn't make the shooting OK, or the victim liable for anything at law, but I cannot say "he did nothing wrong", b/c he absolutely did something wrong, and it's black letter regulation.

[MTcatfan]

Okay I will give you that, so to me the victim is about 1% to blame and the officer is 99% to blame. I also agree that he did something that warranted an increase in the officers stress level, but that is all he did, He did nothing to elevate this traffic stop to the point where shots should be fired. I guess that is why I am not backing down, I see a guy, who as Doc said, IS ALREADY OUTSIDE OF HIS VEHICLE, rolled up on by a police officer, for what imho, is a very, very, very, suspect "seat belt violation". I mean really I guess that the cop saw the driver when he was pulling out of the parking lot he was in because the truck you see at the beginning of the video is NOT the vehicle that is pulled over. The vehicle that is pulled over is an SUV, like a Nissan Xterra, because if you look at the bottom right of the video you can see the wheel well of the vehicle, and the back door that goes around it. The reason I think it is an Xterra is because I used to own one and that back door and beginning of the wheel well looks exactly like that. So I just don't understand why the cop is already in an "offensive" mindset as soon as he pulls up on a stopped vehicle, where the driver has already had a chance to step out of the vehicle. If the officer isn't already in an "offensive" mindset, and is more closely following proper procedure, this never happens, as the cop waits 2 seconds to see if the drivers hands are object free, this never happens. That is why in the blame game, I definitely can't give the drive much blame.



There is another South Carolina traffic stop that made the news because a cop pulled over Sam Montgomery of the Cincy Bengals for doing 89 in a 55, and the cop got fired because he threatened to use a taser on a cooperating suspect. He was fired because he did not follow proper procedure. Well with that stop I actually have more sympathy for the cop because it is the middle of the night, he is by himself, and this hulk of a human gets out of the vehicle. So to me he had reason to be a little more "offensive" in his actions versus the cop in the original video.

Now Montgomery almost appears to be a bit uncooperative, but it is because he is not understanding the cop's instructions, and that leads to the taser comment, but Montgomery is not being aggressive or resisting in the least bit and I think that is why the cop gets fired. So look at this video:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aumHBOrOiqw




So I guess to me another big issue I have with the shooting is time and place, and the officer's actions from the start just don't fit the time and place of the traffic stop, and they ignore the unusual nature of the stop happening after the driver has exited the vehicle. The Montgomery officer has more cause to be in an offensive position from the get go, due to time and place and size of the driver, and I am not sure that his firing is justified. So I am not against the police, I just expect them to react appropriately to time and place and type of situation. Again I probably blame the driver 1% and the cop 99%, in the Montgomery situation, but I have a lot more sympathy for the Montgomery officer than I do the original video officer.


Article where cop being fired is mentioned:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/22/cop-who-threatened-to-taser-sam-montgomery-fired/

[Doc]

That's a really strained analogy.

I'm not aware of a single dress code manual or sign on a bar door that says you are liable for your own rape if you dress provocatively. I am aware of 50 state traffic manuals and numerous other state and federal documents, instructional manuals/videos, and guides that say you are to keep your hands visible at all times to an officer at a traffic stop.
not relevant as the man was already out of his car. I guess when the officer pulled up he should have jumped back in his truck and put his hands on the wheel. That way when the officer put 6 rounds in him he would likely have hit him in the head rather than the hip
He may also have violated the rules by stepping out of his vehicle, but I'm not sure if he was doing that naturally as he was stopped at a gas station, or if he got out in reaction to the officer's approach. But I'm betting most states tell you to not get out of your vehicle when stopped unless instructed. I know Kentucky does. That part is unclear from the video, but is another possible reason for the officer to be suspicious.
He did not violate anything. Clearly he was stopping prior to to officer pulling up. He was stopping at the store and getting out of his car as the office arrived. It wasn't the officer pulled him over and he got out of the truck. He was getting out of the truck when the officer arrived
Now this guy was in his view following the officer's instructions to get back into his vehicle, which is why I don't "blame" him, but it was no doubt a suspicious move as defined in every state. The miscommunication clearly is a factor here, but it still would have been wise to say "my license is in my car in my wallet, do you want me to get it or do you want to retrieve it?" yes, it would have been wise to do that. It also would have been wise to wear his seat belt. Additionally it would have been wise for the officer to yell "don't move" or "stop" or " slow down". There are about a hundred other smart thing that could have been done in hind site. Heck, he could have tazered him but he didnt

But the one that gets me is that saying the move was suspicious or a mistake necessarily somehow justifies the officer's actions. Of course it does not and no one here has taken that position. We have said that it a) was a mistake on his part, and b) would have justified the officer having his weapon ready, but certainly not pulling the trigger.
The officer was clearly wrong to open fire on this person, but that doesn't change the fact that the person did not follow the proper procedure for a traffic stop and made movements that would have likely made 99% of officers very nervous. Doesn't mean it's his fault for being shot, his actions do NOT justify having been shot, but had he come back up looking at an officer with a drawn or handed weapon I wouldn't have blamed the officer.what most are objecting to is placing blame on the victim. Nobody said it was a justified shooting but I bristle at the idea that the guy who was shot is blamed even slightly.

[MTcatfan]

Also more on my mentioning that the officer is NOT pulling over the truck at the beginning of the video, the truck at the beginning is a TWO DOOR truck, and the vehicle the officer pulls up on in the video is clearly a 4 door vehicle. Also if you look closely the wheel wells on the truck are not accented with anything, and the vehicle the officer pulls up on the wheel wells are lined with black accents. I ascertain that the vehicle that is pulled over is a SUV, probably a Nissan Xterra, as the back door of an Xterra matches the back door of the vehicle in the video. So again I wonder at what point the officer saw that this guy had no seat belts on, because that vehicle never passes in front of the video camera of the police car. I realized it could have been an observation from the side of the vehicle, but to me even the pretense of the traffic stop is a bit suspect in this case.

[suncat05]

On a traffic stop, the officer's approach and initial contact with the citizen most times sets the stage for the rest of any interactions for the remainder of the contact.

Whenever I do a traffic stop, I ALWAYS approach the vehicle using all due caution. And when I make actual verbal/visual contact with the driver I always try to put them at ease, even if they may be a little upset. Most traffic stops are for minor infractions. Most, but not all. And there can be numerous mitigating circumstances surrounding a traffic stop. It can be simple, or it can get complex.........in the blink of an eye. But an officer's initial contact with the citizen will usually set the stage for how it proceeds, and ends.
I haven't written a citation in years. Since 2009. But I have done a few traffic stops when necessary, it ain't rocket science. I try to avoid writing citations. Look, you can tell a citizen that they have a tail light out, please get it fixed. If I see you again and you haven't fixed it, then I'll write you a citation. That's it. You're free to go.
Now, a felony traffic stop is another creature. There's going to be multiple officers involved, there's going to be drawn guns, and there will be loud, clear, simple commands given. Comply, and we'll sort everything out and decide if you go to jail or not. Don't comply, and resist, or try to flee, and the chances of the police becoming aggressive/violent increases dramatically. But we are going to restore order, one way or another. That's our job, to protect the public and keep the peace. And I am going to do my job. But my hope is that you get to go home okay, and that I get to go home okay. That's the goal, everybody gets to go home the same way they left there.

[Darrell KSR]

I'd just rather be alive than right. Common sense goes a long way. The video I provided should show that police officers are in danger even when we think they are not. Why put yourself in that position?

[CitizenBBN]

It was suspicious. I think most would agree. There is a difference between acting or doing something suspicious and being at fault/to blame.

As for the drivers manual, the driver was getting out of the car. He wasn't pulled over in the sense of it was a traffic stop. He stopped at the convenient store and was exiting his car when the officer drove up. I suspect he was unaware he was getting stopped as he was exiting the car so "hands on the wheel" does not come into play


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why I said I need to see more but I don't think he got out of the car as a traffic stop situation but was getting out of the car and the officer then approached. Assuming that's the case I don't think there's anything at all wrong there on his part.

I don't "blame" him, clearly the fault lies with the officer pulling the trigger without a known threat. But the victim did, through unintentional actions, contribute to the circumstances that created the situation. Maybe if we did it in math he's 5% culpable for his actions, the officer 95%.

IMO there has to be some breakdown that is non-zero for him b/c the circumstance where the officer is 100% to blame, shooting a guy standing on the street corner eating a sandwich, is where clearly the victim is 100% innocent of anything. In that case the officer had no reason to feel threatened, in this case he had a reason to have heightened concern, so the contribution of the victim must be non-zero.

None of that excuses the act of shooting the guy when he didn't have a weapon. But the victim did take actions that contributed to the events that got us there, actions he should not have taken. Doesn't mean I "blame" him, but he does have some amount of fault in it, albeit a small amount.

[CitizenBBN]

I realized it could have been an observation from the side of the vehicle, but to me even the pretense of the traffic stop is a bit suspect in this case.

I agree with this. I find stopping someone for a seatbelt suspect anyway, but in this case even more so. It looks like the guy is parked, doesn't really ever enter traffic, pulls up to a truck with a guy pulling into the gas station, gets out and starts asking for his license. No moving violation, no other issues than maybe not a seat belt that he could have maybe seen as the guy was pulling in.

hardly a good use of LEO resources IMO even if that's the case. I'd laugh if I got the license and registration routine for that sort of thing. So I agree it already looks like the guy was being a douche, then overreacts to what I think was something that should have put him on notice but certainly not justified shooting him.

[dan_bgblue]

It has been proven millions of times that the general public is plumb stupid, and even more stupid when confronted by situations outside their comfort zone. Officer made a bad judgement, and pulled the trigger. That is on him, and he should not have the chance to make that mistake again, ever. The general public made a stupid mistake, just like millions of others do every day, but should not have been shot for the mistake.

It amazes me every day that the general public is as stupid as they are, and I am sure LEOs will agree with me, that if the general public was not so stupid, their job would be much easier. The general public does not want to take responsibility for anything they do nor the ramifications of their actions. They live in a kind of la la land and walk around staring at their cell phone screens all day.

The officer was totally responsible for what happened as he made the decision to approach the general public and take him out of the comfort zone. Doing so led to the general public making a stupid mistake while out of his comfort zone, and it cost him his life.

[UKHistory]

I am not sure the cop should be fired for the comment but he should reprimanded. The taser comment is an example of where you give someone a toy they will want to find a way to use it.

89 in a 55 could be construed reckless driving. But I think getting his license and platess and then arresting would have been better. I actually don't speed 30 miles over the speed limit generally. But I would be terrified if the officer said stick your hands out. Thank goodness that man didn't get out of the car. He opened the door but at any height that is an awkward motion.

I think the commands would be a little confusing to me as well. The officer would not be physically frightened by me.


Okay I will give you that, so to me the victim is about 1% to blame and the officer is 99% to blame. I also agree that he did something that warranted an increase in the officers stress level, but that is all he did, He did nothing to elevate this traffic stop to the point where shots should be fired. I guess that is why I am not backing down, I see a guy, who as Doc said, IS ALREADY OUTSIDE OF HIS VEHICLE, rolled up on by a police officer, for what imho, is a very, very, very, suspect "seat belt violation". I mean really I guess that the cop saw the driver when he was pulling out of the parking lot he was in because the truck you see at the beginning of the video is NOT the vehicle that is pulled over. The vehicle that is pulled over is an SUV, like a Nissan Xterra, because if you look at the bottom right of the video you can see the wheel well of the vehicle, and the back door that goes around it. The reason I think it is an Xterra is because I used to own one and that back door and beginning of the wheel well looks exactly like that. So I just don't understand why the cop is already in an "offensive" mindset as soon as he pulls up on a stopped vehicle, where the driver has already had a chance to step out of the vehicle. If the officer isn't already in an "offensive" mindset, and is more closely following proper procedure, this never happens, as the cop waits 2 seconds to see if the drivers hands are object free, this never happens. That is why in the blame game, I definitely can't give the drive much blame.



There is another South Carolina traffic stop that made the news because a cop pulled over Sam Montgomery of the Cincy Bengals for doing 89 in a 55, and the cop got fired because he threatened to use a taser on a cooperating suspect. He was fired because he did not follow proper procedure. Well with that stop I actually have more sympathy for the cop because it is the middle of the night, he is by himself, and this hulk of a human gets out of the vehicle. So to me he had reason to be a little more "offensive" in his actions versus the cop in the original video.

Now Montgomery almost appears to be a bit uncooperative, but it is because he is not understanding the cop's instructions, and that leads to the taser comment, but Montgomery is not being aggressive or resisting in the least bit and I think that is why the cop gets fired. So look at this video:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aumHBOrOiqw




So I guess to me another big issue I have with the shooting is time and place, and the officer's actions from the start just don't fit the time and place of the traffic stop, and they ignore the unusual nature of the stop happening after the driver has exited the vehicle. The Montgomery officer has more cause to be in an offensive position from the get go, due to time and place and size of the driver, and I am not sure that his firing is justified. So I am not against the police, I just expect them to react appropriately to time and place and type of situation. Again I probably blame the driver 1% and the cop 99%, in the Montgomery situation, but I have a lot more sympathy for the Montgomery officer than I do the original video officer.


Article where cop being fired is mentioned:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/22/cop-who-threatened-to-taser-sam-montgomery-fired/

[suncat05]

I have had a department issued TASER for about 10-12 years now. I have only had to draw it twice, and fortunately did not have to use it. But I will if necessary. It's amazing how that little red laser light gets people's attention when they see it. Both people I put it on told me they didn't want to "ride the lightning", so things got civil again real quick.

[Doc]

I think the commands would be a little confusing to me as well. The officer would not be physically frightened by me.

A little confusing? How about a lot confusing! Again, you have a train professional dealing with a non trained nervous individual who is trying to process the commands. The officer is barking multiple commands rapid fire and expecting the guy to instantaneously process them, then when he gets confused acts like the guy is being non compliant. IMO a calmer approach by the officer would have likely led to a calmer and more compliant perpetrator. I'm not saying the officer should let his guard down or not keep his safety first but the rapid fire instructions is more than a nervous person can process.

[suncat05]

This! Thank you for making my point for me. As I have stated at least twice previously, better communication by both parties would probably have prevented this shooting from happening.