Justified shooting?

[gud2goe]

i Wouldn't say poor guy just yet but i wouldn't say she was right either. i don't know the laws in all states but it takes two cops to make a dui case in a lot of states. which says why wasn't there back up. i don't know what lead up to all the angst she had just prior to the pull-over, but it is clear she was already maxed out. in either case, i think back up was warranted. we can debate this but had she been a man things might not have gotten this far

 

[mswaim]

That's the first time I've ever heard it takes to officers to make a case for DUI. Why would that be a criteria?

 

[Blacksunshine]

Never know, he could of had a hold of her arms or something, that could make an officer feel threatened. I don't feel that she should of shot him. If she noticed something odd about him costantly bumping into her, hands in his pockets, etc, she should of immediately taken the keys out of the vehicle so an escape would of been un-attainable. Shooting in the leg/extremity would of been more appropriate than in the back, if it was necessary to shoot at all. Running on foot for committing an act such as drunk driving does not allow for shooting. Understandable for the officer's nervousness but she should of thought a little more clear on that, and I'm sure she got a little heat for it.

 

[COBRA90GT]

Originally posted by Blacksunshine
... Shooting in the leg/extremity would of been more appropriate than in the back, if it was necessary to shoot at all....

Sadly, it's not like "Hollywood." Officers are not trained to shoot for an "extremity" (if I had a nickel for everytime I heard that one... j/k ). In the "real world," we are taught to shoot center-mass. Shoot until the threat has stopped. IIRC, he was shot in the stomach region...

Again, from a legal standpoint (reference the prior link I posted: http://www.daweslane.com/anderson.html ), it seems like she acted accordingly given the totality of the circumstances, given her (lack of) skill, during this altercation at least from a legal standpoint.
Now, does it mean it's ok for her to shoot anyone that she can't forcibly control? Of course not. This is where better training comes in (defensive tactics/takedowns, etc) and other tools (such as OC spray or perhaps "less-lethal" rounds, such as beanbag).
I will say that this should have never escalated to deadly force when looking at it from say, a veteran officer's point of view (and the general public's view), but she did what she had to in order to prevent the guy from driving off (he was wanted on a warrant as well), putting other motorists at risk, etc.

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by SPEEDTRAPZ
mswaim, your fighting a losing battle, some civilians are blinded by "the way things oughta be". instead of "the way things are" I wish I could throw some of these bleeding hearts into an awful situation and let them fend for themselves for like 30 sec...... the first time you ever have someone jump you shit for real, it changes the way you handle things for the rest of your career. And makes you aware of how quickly things can go deadly. I dont care what her abilities as a police officer are. When I say, "your under arrest". You better submit or youll wish you had and that includes an "ass whippen"-> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->"termination" its all about how far you wanna take it. But I WILL NOT LOSE. no matter what. I dont care if i gotta call the whole department out there, or if you put me in a position that i have to use deadly force. Sounds like this guy didnt get enough home traning and wound up getting dealt with.

My God. What a load of crap. You and this trooper have absolutely no business as law enforcement officers. PERIOD. You are a bigger threat to society than this kid was. It is attitudes like this that get officers and civilians hurt.

First, this lady was nothing but a pure bitch to this guy from word one. She should be fired simply because of her unprofessional conduct. There is no reason and nothing to gain by being ugly to people. Had she been nicer and less confrontational, this guy would likely have complied. As for his pocket knife, big deal, he didn't brandish it. This lady shot this man simply for resisting arrest. THAT IS A CRIME!!! This woman should be prosecuted as a criminal.

Second, the guy didn't run until she shot the man. And the use of deadly force to effect a misdemeanor arrest where the perp is not threatening or attacking the officer is pure and simple excessive use of force. This lady could have easilly called for back up numerous times before trying to effect this arrest. Safety in numbers.

This is a horrible example of police brutality. And frankly, it disgusts me to see anyone, especially a police officer who should be trained to know better, and professional and objective enough to admit poor conduct when they see it, try and justify the shooting in this case. You LEO's should be ashamed of yourselves for condoning and rationalizing this woman's conduct.

To you officers that think this lady was justified, you scare me. You are supposed to protect society, not be a threat to it. Speedtrapz, you are a police brutality case waiting to happen. You are going to hurt someone that doesn't deserve it and you are going to get sued, or worse, go to prison. I think you need to look for a new profession.

And before you start flaming me for my lack of LEO experience or knowledge of what constitutes excessive force, Let me say as follows: I have both presecuted and sat on the bench as a judge. I have assisted and been with LEO many times in many circumstances. Futher, I have seen and studied many excessive force claims. In fact, I just attended court ordered mediation of a claim by my client against two Atlanta PD officers. The mediator was a federal judge with 20 years experience as a Asst. U.S. Atty. Atlanta has offered 6 figures and I expect the settlement approval this very day.

One interesting thing I have found, is the cops that try and use their brawn instead of their brains to deal with situations do poorly. The end up in more fights, more claims of excessive force, more lawsuits, more injuries to themselves and others. Officers, even 140 lb. officers, that use their head and good people skills, usually avoid physical confrontations altogether and do their job just fine.

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by SPEEDTRAPZ
well i finally got to see it. THAT has got to be the stupidest white kid i have ever seen, I probably wouldnt have shot him but at the very least he would have bought an extended stay in the local charity hospital........ He deserves anything he gets he was clarly resisting (passively) but the look on his face was priceless, "you shot me.". But I do see a real problem with this trooper and her tactics. She is lacking to say the least. My god what a cluster F@#$

In all fairness to you Speedtrapz, I over looked this post by you. I think it shows that you recognized this was poor policing by this woman.

I personally believe, and I think you will agree, that shooting this kid was NOT necessary.

 

[T-Bolt]

Isn't it the shot pattern 2 to the chest, 1 to the head? This kid should thank whoever controls us that this looney officer didn't take the other 2 shots, and that he can still walk.

 

[mswaim]

Originally posted by esqeddy
My God. What a load of crap. You and this trooper have absolutely no business as law enforcement officers. PERIOD. You are a bigger threat to society than this kid was. It is attitudes like this that get officers and civilians hurt.

First, this lady was nothing but a pure bitch to this guy from word one. She should be fired simply because of her unprofessional conduct. There is no reason and nothing to gain by being ugly to people. Had she been nicer and less confrontational, this guy would likely have complied. As for his pocket knife, big deal, he didn't brandish it. This lady shot this man simply for resisting arrest. THAT IS A CRIME!!! This woman should be prosecuted as a criminal.

Second, the guy didn't run until she shot the man. And the use of deadly force to effect a misdemeanor arrest where the perp is not threatening or attacking the officer is pure and simple excessive use of force. This lady could have easilly called for back up numerous times before trying to effect this arrest. Safety in numbers.

This is a horrible example of police brutality. And frankly, it disgusts me to see anyone, especially a police officer who should be trained to know better, and professional and objective enough to admit poor conduct when they see it, try and justify the shooting in this case. You LEO's should be ashamed of yourselves for condoning and rationalizing this woman's conduct.

To you officers that think this lady was justified, you scare me. You are supposed to protect society, not be a threat to it. Speedtrapz, you are a police brutality case waiting to happen. You are going to hurt someone that doesn't deserve it and you are going to get sued, or worse, go to prison. I think you need to look for a new profession.

And before you start flaming me for my lack of LEO experience or knowledge of what constitutes excessive force, Let me say as follows: I have both presecuted and sat on the bench as a judge. I have assisted and been with LEO many times in many circumstances. Futher, I have seen and studied many excessive force claims. In fact, I just attended court ordered mediation of a claim by my client against two Atlanta PD officers. The mediator was a federal judge with 20 years experience as a Asst. U.S. Atty. Atlanta has offered 6 figures and I expect the settlement approval this very day.

One interesting thing I have found, is the cops that try and use their brawn instead of their brains to deal with situations do poorly. The end up in more fights, more claims of excessive force, more lawsuits, more injuries to themselves and others. Officers, even 140 lb. officers, that use their head and good people skills, usually avoid physical confrontations altogether and do their job just fine.

Spoken like a true attorney..........The legal profession is a unique one in that its population will work both sides of the street with equal ease. One thing you don't usually see is police officers retiring and going over to work as investigators in the public defender's office, however lawyers will prosecute and defend in the same week with no guilt or confusion.

Reading about cases and rubbing shoulders with cops will not provide you with the insight needed to make such statements. You need to spend long hours working alone with only your wits and training to assure that you make it home at the end of the shift.

As I said before, the officer reacted badly, providing quite a bit of insight into her level of training and ability to control a slowly spiraling situation. The suspect should have been forcibly taken into custody at the first sign of resistance, period. But I wasn't there so I'll not judge so harshly.

I once stopped a vehicle with two average sized guys inside believing the driver was DUI. While administering my FST's, the driver suddenly lunged at me and the fight was on. The passenger joined in like all good crooks, leaving me in a fight for my life. I survived, one of them did not. He decided his own fate that night, however by the time the attorneys and IA boys were done I felt like I should have just let them kill me.

Until you've been there, your opinion needs to be tempered by the thought that when shit hits the fan, you cannot control who will stink when the blades stop turning.

 

[mswaim]

This is a horrible example of police brutality. And frankly, it disgusts me to see anyone, especially a police officer who should be trained to know better, and professional and objective enough to admit poor conduct when they see it, try and justify the shooting in this case. You LEO's should be ashamed of yourselves for condoning and rationalizing this woman's conduct.

Just to reiterate, I don't think any of us are trying to rationalize the conduct, however we have all been there at least once in our career, a situation you cannot even begin to understand.

The facts are the facts, her use of deadly force was not justified by what we witnessed on the tape. However, the law in this situation is determined by her state of mind at the time of the incident, not yours after re-reviewing the tape numerous times.

This is NOT a horrible example of police brutality. It is a prime example of an officer who was poorly trained and poorly supervised.

In all actuality, I'm surprised a smart attorney hasn't approached her with the idea of suing the city she works for. Her cause of action would be their failure to train her properly, to provide her with the proper intermediate-level tools and their failure to properly supervise her. Properly supervised, the city would have realized long ago she was ill-prepared for the streets. I believe they call it "negative retention" as well as their "directly indifferent attitude" towards her obvious lack of skills. I think she's got a great case.

I take real offense to your comments concerning the fact we as professionals should be willing to "admit poor conduct when they see it". I believe we have done that, so you can check your condescending attitude at the door.

 

[Blacksunshine]

Originally posted by COBRA90GT
Sadly, it's not like "Hollywood." Officers are not trained to shoot for an "extremity" (if I had a nickel for everytime I heard that one... j/k ). In the "real world," we are taught to shoot center-mass. Shoot until the threat has stopped. IIRC, he was shot in the stomach region...

Again, from a legal standpoint (reference the prior link I posted: http://www.daweslane.com/anderson.html ), it seems like she acted accordingly given the totality of the circumstances, given her (lack of) skill, during this altercation at least from a legal standpoint.

You are correct, officers are trained to shoot a center mass, on an aggressive threat. He was not a threat. He was running away on foot. I believe to stop someone running on foot, shooting their "lower" body area will suffice, not shooting a region which could do damage to the spine and really get that officer in trouble if that kid never walked again. But like I said earlier, my whole argument would change if something that we didn't see in the video happened when they were on the side of the car, such as him grabbing for her gun or grabbing her, therefore projecting himself to be a threat to her, now that would completely justify lethal force. Now whoever posted earlier saying she was being too mean, I don't think she was at all. The kid wasn't giving straight answers and she was complying in the perfect manner she should of. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where every civilian complies accordingly with law enforcement. But I agree she did make poor judgement on the use of lethal force. As soon as that kid put his hands in his pocket the 3rd time she should of had that spray out and threatning to use it. Shouldn't she be crucified for it? Not at all, but she needs better training and obviously better supervisors.

 

[chiliman]

I don't get her demeanor from the beginning. She comes out from the get go yelling and agitated. Her actions served no purpose but to add fuel to a potentially bad situation. Then when things start going wrong at times, she's calm and nice. I don't get it! She has some real problems.

Any other reasonable and professional officer would have been less antagonistic from the beginning and then started to give the guy the beating he deserved when he got uncooperative and wasn't listening to direction. I agree this is a prime example that this is a case of very poor training and supervision. But there are assholes in every business.

With that said, like was said before, unless something happened directly off screen like grabbing for her weapon, etc then there is absolutely no justification to her shooting him.

The point made that for those of us that haven't been in that situation have a hard time understanding or judging it have a point. They should also realize that those that have been in situations like this may have their terrible experience skew (sp?) their judgement.

Looking at this video, hopefully the guy recovered okay and she is super sizing someones lunch.

 

[sbro712]

I have both presecuted and sat on the bench as a judge. I have assisted and been with LEO many times in many circumstances

Given the tone of his post, do you think he meant "persecuted" or "prosecuted"?

If you were a judge, does that you mean you lost the election and are no longer one?

Having been on both sides of the legal fence is nothing to brag about...all it means is that your morals/ethics are for sale.

As far as assisting LEOs, the girl who sells me my slurpee at 7-11 does more to assist me than most of the lawyers I have had to deal with in my career.

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by mswaim

Just to reiterate, I don't think any of us are trying to rationalize the conduct, however we have all been there at least once in our career, a situation you cannot even begin to understand.

The facts are the facts, her use of deadly force was not justified by what we witnessed on the tape. However, the law in this situation is determined by her state of mind at the time of the incident, not yours after re-reviewing the tape numerous times.

This is NOT a horrible example of police brutality. It is a prime example of an officer who was poorly trained and poorly supervised.

In all actuality, I'm surprised a smart attorney hasn't approached her with the idea of suing the city she works for. Her cause of action would be their failure to train her properly, to provide her with the proper intermediate-level tools and their failure to properly supervise her. Properly supervised, the city would have realized long ago she was ill-prepared for the streets. I believe they call it "negative retention" as well as their "directly indifferent attitude" towards her obvious lack of skills. I think she's got a great case.

I take real offense to your comments concerning the fact we as professionals should be willing to "admit poor conduct when they see it". I believe we have done that, so you can check your condescending attitude at the door.

You think you have to be a police officer to have faced a self defense situation? Sorry, but I countless people have had their life threatened and have been in life or death situations. People are forced to defend their lives every day, without a gun on their hip, mace on their belt, a shotgun in their car, a badge on their chest, a radio to call for backup at hand, or a police force ready to jump in with just a call. In fact, people have to protect themselves with just their wits everyday.

When someone takes a job as an LEO, they are knowingly placing themselves is a job which can prove deadly and they assume that risk. If you aren't willing to take that risk and still play by the rules, get another job. Its that simple.

Don't get me wrong. An officer's job is under paid, dangerous, often thankless, and technical. I wouldn't want the job, and I aplaud and care deeply for the men and women who can and do perform their jobs well to the benefit of me and my family. However, I do no and cannot condon officers that abuse their authority, that bully people around, and that use excessive force.

As to your statement about her state of mind. Sorry but you are wrong. The test is an objective one and not a subjective one. The question isn't what she thought, but what a reasonable person in a like situation would have thought.

As for suing the gov. agency for lack of training, sorry, no go. I tried to attach municipal liability in a case where an officer shot an unarmed man under the inadequate training theory. The Federal Court ruled that an officer which has passed the state mandated basic training (called P.O.S.T. training in Ga.) is per se adequately trained. Of course, that is in a Title 42 Section 1983 context where vicarious liability doesn't automatically attach as it would otherwise. Even if she could sue, her damages would be limited to the emotional distress she suffered having shot someone else (something a jury might not have sympothy for). Also, since it is an on the job injury, her only remedy may be a workers comp case.

Guys, let me apologize for my initial harsh posts. It just boils my blood to see something like this. Without any question, this was excessive force and it should have never happened. Frankly, if you review some of the initial posts by LEO's, it sure looks like typical LEO's closing ranks to protect their own. I hope you can understand why I have a problem with that.

Something else I would like to address. Yes, I can and have worked all sides of the legal system. I beleive that for the system to work correctly, ALL sides must do their best. The prosecutor must aggressively prosecute what he/she believes are crimes, the defense bar must zealously defend clients to insure they have every benifit of a good defense, and judges must try and be fair and impartial to insure that justice is done.
Nothing is perfect and despite the best possible human efforts I see guilty people walk and innocent people prisoned. However, if anyone fails in thier job, our system (the most just in the world)really starts to collapse. Lousy prosecutor, too many criminals get joke sentenaces or walk, poor defenders and the innocent are railroaded, poor judges and no one trusts the system.

I believe in the system. WITH ALL MY HEART. Yes, it needs improvements. No, it isn't perfect. And yes regardless of which job I do, I do it with all my heart and without hesitation. If there is someone I can't defend zealously, then I don't, and there are times I have so refused.

 

[mswaim]

"As to your statement about her state of mind. Sorry but you are wrong. The test is an objective one and not a subjective one. The question isn't what she thought, but what a reasonable person in a like situation would have thought."

Sorry, but I'll debate you all day on issues related to such situations. The deciding factor here is the officer's state of mind, not that of a reasonable person placed in a similar situation. Reasonable people are not sworn police officers and as such the standard is different. Perhaps in a civil case but not when criminal consequences attach.

You think you have to be a police officer to have faced a self defense situation? Sorry, but I countless people have had their life threatened and have been in life or death situations. People are forced to defend their lives every day, without a gun on their hip, mace on their belt, a shotgun in their car, a badge on their chest, a radio to call for backup at hand, or a police force ready to jump in with just a call. In fact, people have to protect themselves with just their wits everyday.

Your statement above proves my point, you haven't got a clue concerning the true nature of the profession. All your saying is we deserve what happens to us since we chose to be cops. And you as John Q. Citizen deserve robotic responses to all situations, no matter what. Sorry, it's not that easy.

Bottom line is we will always disagree on some issues, but that's what makes life interesting.

 

[COBRA90GT]

Originally posted by esqeddy
...As to your statement about her state of mind. Sorry but you are wrong. The test is an objective one and not a subjective one. The question isn't what she thought, but what a reasonable person in a like situation would have thought....

Well, I will opine that the "test" is not really a clear & cut objective test. It consists of several factors, I'd like to think of it more as a "zone" than a "line," if you will - at least when looking at case law. I'll paraphrase Graham V Conner 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989), regarding the use of force:

"The reasonableness standard must make an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."

Now having said that, the "reasonableness standard" is determined by several factors, such as: severity of the crime, whether suspect poses threat to safety of the officer and others, whether they are resisting or evading, etc.

If you were to walk a mile in this young trooper's shoes (in the context of this traffic stop/use of force incident), it is perhaps now somewhat clearer to see how use of force & Graham V Conner comes into play. She was acting with the limited amount of knowledge and experience in which she had at her disposal while trying to seize this individual at this given moment on the side of the highway - I'm not saying it was the "best decision" to fire upon him, but it was one in which she felt would aid her the best during this quickly unfolding incident.



Blacksunshine - Believe it or not, an ordinary person during a traffic stop may pose a threat (it could have happened off camera like you suggested, or perhaps this young trooper was thinking of getting this drunk driver driver off the road & taking him into lawful custody - we'll never know what was really going on). But, anyways, you need to have a plan in case the poop hits the fan during a traffic stop. Unfortunately (for the bad guys), those who are fired upon will usually be shot somewhere around center mass (taking the officer's aim into consideration) - the only exception is a SWAT team sharpshooter.

One of my favorite quotes is:

#5 - Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you consider a threat.

 

[Blacksunshine]

That is an understandable argument. Since it did escalate to that point she probably did think "he is gonna get in there drunk and speed off and hit other drivers maybe killing them, so I will just injure him with a gunshot wound", which is a feasable thought. But my whole argument is that if she would of taken the keys out of the ignition and put them in her pocket it wouldn't of escalated to the shooting, what would he have done? Ran down the highway? lol. He would of been easily detained. Everyone that gets stopped is a potential threat, it is the nature of the beast. He wouldn't of been a threat if she would of taken the keys, it would of neutralized the threat possiblity if you will. But she did some poor choice calling if you ask me. Things could of been handled differently.

 

[COBRA90GT]

Originally posted by Blacksunshine
That is an understandable argument. Since it did escalate to that point she probably did think "he is gonna get in there drunk and speed off and hit other drivers maybe killing them, so I will just injure him with a gunshot wound", which is a feasable thought. But my whole argument is that if she would of taken the keys out of the ignition and put them in her pocket it wouldn't of escalated to the shooting, what would he have done? Ran down the highway? lol. He would of been easily detained. Everyone that gets stopped is a potential threat, it is the nature of the beast. He wouldn't of been a threat if she would of taken the keys, it would of neutralized the threat possiblity if you will. But she did some poor choice calling if you ask me. Things could of been handled differently.

Yes, I do see your side - taking the keys away might have been a possibility during the stop. The sad part is that if the guy did manage to run down the highway (LOL!! crazy, I know!), the trooper would have been responsible for his safety if something happened to him (from a civil point of view, in court of course).
I guess it just goes to show that there are a wide range of variables at play during a traffic stop and plenty of different ways to go about handling a tense situation where an individual needs to be taken into custody. Experience & proper training go a long ways towards ensuring a smooth outcome for everyone involved. Hopefully this video will be used to help train future officers on "what to do" and "what not to do." :beer:

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by sbro712
Given the tone of his post, do you think he meant "persecuted" or "prosecuted"?

If you were a judge, does that you mean you lost the election and are no longer one?

Having been on both sides of the legal fence is nothing to brag about...all it means is that your morals/ethics are for sale.

As far as assisting LEOs, the girl who sells me my slurpee at 7-11 does more to assist me than most of the lawyers I have had to deal with in my career.

Fortunately, you can read past typo's.

I served a term as Cheif Magistrate Judge, and another as municipal court judge. Both were appointed. I declined to continue in either because they took too much time and paid to little (this is a rural county) In fact, as Cheif Magistrate, after they deducted for med. insurance, I took what was left of my check each week, added $3.00 from my own pocket, and paid a girl minimum wage to be my clerk and keep the office open 40 hours each week.

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong about my morals being for sale and I take exception to that. I will repeat what I said before:

"Yes, I can and have worked all sides of the legal system. I beleive that for the system to work correctly, ALL sides must do their best. The prosecutor must aggressively prosecute what he/she believes are crimes, the defense bar must zealously defend clients to insure they have every benifit of a good defense, and judges must try and be fair and impartial to insure that justice is done.
Nothing is perfect and despite the best possible human efforts I see guilty people walk and innocent people prisoned. However, if anyone fails in thier job, our system (the most just in the world)really starts to collapse. Lousy prosecutor, too many criminals get joke sentenaces or walk, poor defenders and the innocent are railroaded, poor judges and no one trusts the system.

I believe in the system. WITH ALL MY HEART. Yes, it needs improvements. No, it isn't perfect. And yes regardless of which job I do, I do it with all my heart and without hesitation. If there is someone I can't defend zealously, then I don't, and there are times I have so refused."

As far as lawyers assisting you: Have you ever asked one to? Or are you stuck behind your "Its us good guys against all them bad guys" mentallity? Every LEO in this county that has ever needed legal work and asked me for it has received it.....FREE! That includes everything from custody battles, fighting creditors, to simple legal advice.

 

[mswaim]

This has been a very good debate. I think some who thought we could not look past the "thin blue line" and condemn one of our own for poor judgement can see that assumption is just that.

With that said, perhaps there is now a better understanding of why we are not so quick to condemn, since we all realize that it could happen to any of us on any given night.

 

[sbro712]

As far as lawyers assisting you: Have you ever asked one to? Or are you stuck behind your "Its us good guys against all them bad guys" mentallity? Every LEO in this county that has ever needed legal work and asked me for it has received it.....FREE! That includes everything from custody battles, fighting creditors, to simple legal advice

Good for you....I thought you were referring to assistance as in being the prosecutor in a criminal case and that was what I meant in referring to the girl working at 7-11 being more help.

Keep up the pro bono work....whatever helps you sleep at night.