What was the guy in the car supposed to do? Stay still or get out of the car?
Stay still? Get murdered
Get out of the car? Killed
Did you even watch the video? The cop was screaming that he was about to kill the dude in the car. He was completely hysterical. He wound himself so tight that the easiest thing he could do was shoot someone dead.
Regards,
Shodan
I saw the video. The cop kept repeating not to move, to keep still and if he reached for something he would be shot. It was pretty obvious that the thing to do was to stay put with hands empty and visible. But the guy took it upon himself to get out of the car, and got shot.
I suppose you must be referring to the early part of the stop where the cop tells the other cop that “we’re going to have to get him out of the car”, having spotted the gun. But he did not at any point instruct the guy to get out and was pretty emphatic about telling him not to move.
As above, this guy was known to the cops, had a gun in his car at the time, and got out of the car in violation of cop’s orders at very close proximity. I’m not an expert in police procedures, but in light of all of the above, it does not look like a problematic shooting from my lay vantage point.
Nitpick – was it his gun? His car? He was a passenger, after all. And the gun was removed prior to the shooting, so it’s not like they were worried he’d reach for that weapon. The rest of what you say is true, but I missed the part where the cop had reason to fear for his life. I also watched the video, and he mostly just sits there being non-compliant, and then gets out of the car slowly with his hands up, against the officer’s wishes. Someone not known to have a weapon getting out of a vehicle slowly with his hands up does not equate to a deadly threat. Unless we’re allowing cops to shoot unarmed non-threatening people now simply for not following directions.
These types of nitpicks are more appropriate for a criminal law case than for a street situation. It’s very reasonable to assume that where there’s one gun there might be two guns.
I disagree with this. I think a known criminal coming out of a car which contained at least one gun and contra explicit orders presents a very real threat. It’s not at all comparable to “not following directions” when those directions are to walk on this side of the street and not that side.
Saw this on The Nightly Show.
Seriously? What the fucking hell?? Nobody in the PD thought this was a bad idea? If not from a humanity perspective, at least from a PR Nightmare perspective? No one thought “If this gets out, we’re gonna look really bad, so maybe we shouldn’t do it”? This was a shared range!!
At the very least, the officers should do some community service, maybe some sensitivity training…maybe CAT scans?
BTW, WRT my references to Reid being a known criminal, here’s the AP:
That’s why he calls him “Jermane” in the video - he knew him. And he probably knew he had been arrested for shooting at some cops too. It would be understandable if he judged the threat from this guy, in this situation, to be quite high.
Ah, yes, a high threat for sure, worthy of much caution. But an imminent deadly threat? Isn’t that the bar for self defense?
eta: My apologies for using the phrase “non-threatening” if that’s what caused confusion. In the previous sentence I’d specified a deadly threat, but I thought “non-deadly-threatening” was too clunky. My point is, I’m not sure that the officer had any reasonable reason to believe that his life was in imminent danger at the moment he pulled the trigger.
I don’t see the difference in this case. To the extent that there was a threat at all it was an imminent deadly one. It’s not like the guy was possibly going to come back later with brass knuckles. The question was whether he was getting out of the car against orders because he had more than one gun on hand and intended to shoot the cop on the spot. I think that was a very reasonable assumption, given the facts described above. YMMV.
Yeah, I’m flabbergasted that you watched the video and you still think that’s a reasonable assumption.
Well like I say, it’s a lay perspective, and it’s possible someone with actual training and experience would look at is as less dangerous (or more so).
I know in general cops get very nervous about people coming out of cars, even in routine traffic stops without any guns or criminal backgrounds etc. and all the more so in cases like this. (In NJ and other states, tinted driver and passenger windows are banned because cops need to be able to see clearly into cars that they’re approaching.)
In any event, that’s how I see it, FWIW.
I’m going to have to stop clicking on the YouTubes. One click leads to another and anger just increases. At least some incidents don’t involve guns or tasering…
In this incident a woman was assaulted by a LEO, and handcuffed in a courtroom when she then complained. The judge ignored the woman and the handcuffing, preferring to play with the victim’s toddler, who of course must be taken into custody.
Emphasis mine.
So apparently getting out of a car against instructions, with your empty hands held out in front of you, is a shooting offense now. Even when a cop has just pulled the door open.
This seems to be the new default. Do anything that makes a cop nervous – and the list of things that make cops nervous increases daily – and you stand a good chance of being shot. Truth to tell, I’m not really comfortable with that state of affairs.
Oh, I know it’s a tough and dangerous job, and all every cop wants is to be able to go home after shift to a loving family, yadda yadda. But hey buckaroo, you sought it out and signed up for it. You’ve trained in it, and are supposed to be a professional. Professional in what? Well, in “protect and serve”, if the motto I see paraphrased in virtually every police station is to be believed. And that means you have accepted some risk. Not unlimited risk, I don’t expect you to dive in and take a bullet for me. But I do expect you to exercise some judgment, indeed even some restraint, in the performance of your duties.
In this particular case, it seems that alternate means of handling the threat could have resulted in zero fatalities. The cops were hot, and placed themselves so close to the subjects as to lose all perspective – and all opportunity for flexibility. Once close approach revealed a gun, why couldn’t the cops back off and cover the miscreants from a distance, like the cover of their patrol car doors? Go through the usual felony stop scenario: “Hold your hands out the window; get out of the car and face away from me; back up towards my voice…” Instead, the cop was so close that when the offender disobeyed orders and got out, he loomed over the cop, and even though his hands were empty, the cop was obviously afraid. Afraid enough to kill.
I’m not arguing the call if it is restricted to that tiny instant in time. Suspect looms, self defense is at least arguably reasonable. But it didn’t need to get to that point. A well trained police force and a greater emphasis on that “protect and serve” thingy should have prevented this outcome.
Do you have a cite that backs up your assertion; that it was no other reason that he called him “Jermane”?
“Probably”? Do you have a cite for your assumption, or is it just your assumption, made totally without evidence here?
Another assumption from you.
Your whole post is nothing but you making assumptions in an attempt to justify an outcome that you already agreed with.
Do you have a cite for this or is it your assumption, made totally without evidence here?
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
My cite is your post, as is evident from anyone reading the two posts, or from just reading my post which rebuts yours.
So no cites? You admit that you are just making stuff up, then? Glad to see you come clean.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but aren’t entitled to make up things and then present them as facts. If you have cites, please provide them.
You know what’s even more fun? Let’s go to the bottom of the quarry and throw stuff up from there. (You go first.)
You want a cite that the arresting officer called him by his name other than because he knew who he was? Why?
We know from the link that Days did know who Reid was, because he had arrested him before. That’s what it says. What I would like to know is, what the fuck difference would it make if he knew it because Reid had it tattooed on his forehead, or a random guess?
I know from past posts that you are not shy about posting in such a way as to make yourself look like a complete idiot. I am curious, however, as to what you think you can establish with this quibble about how the officer knew what his name was. Other than signalling that you are, in fact, not quite as intelligent as some forms of plant life.
OK, I recognize that it is a fairly unimaginative form of trolling, but it might be amusing to hear whatever it is that pint of dysentery-infested sewage atop your brain stem has come up with as an excuse.
Regards,
Shodan
Is this how how you talk to people at your church on Sunday? If not, would you be embarrassed if they found out you treat people this way? If so, are you a hypocrite? Or are you simply a non-believer who attends for other reasons?
It sure shocked me when you admitted you attend church. I mean, surely you realize that’s going to come as a surprise to people here. LOL
Hey, you got to let it out sometime, you know …