He doesn't put his hands up immediately though. If you watch the video back it looks as if he points something at the officer and then puts his hands up.

I watched the part of him stepping out many times now and it's the lights reflecting off his hand. He never points anything at the officer.

I watched the part of him stepping out many times now and it's the lights reflecting off his hand. He never points anything at the officer.

Perhaps looking at all those nekomimis has destroyed my eyesight. To me it looks as if he's extending his hands out towards the officer. 

When an officer pulls you over, they have no idea who they pulled over. It could be someone ordinary that just made a simple traffic mistake or it could be someone who is wanted for murder and all sorts of crimes. People think police officers are too brutal and above the law. If you break a law, police officers will stop you to notify you. If you are reaching for something, police don't have x-ray vision. They will assume you are reaching for some sort of weapon. It's been that way for years, and will be that way for years to come!

 

I hate everything about this news article. "Officer shoots black man" "but the officer is black" OH SHIT BOYY IT'S ABOUT TO GO DOOWWWNNNN. [insert dramatic gopher, or surprised hamster here]

Why in this day and age do we put so much on a person's ethnicity, race, religious beliefs etc? An officer, shot another person. Not "black cop shoots black man".

 

 

I absolutely agree with this. In my opinion, part of the reason "race" is still a thing today is because people make it a thing.

 

But open the video in full screen and keep pausing the video every second, paying VERY close attention to the movement.

 

 

I think this point is irrelevant. The officer doesn't have the luxury of evaluating the situation one second at a time in freeze frame. He has a fraction of a second to assess, decide, and react, he must do that based on the information he believes to be true at the time, and if he makes the wrong choice he could be dead. If it was your life on the line you wouldn't take that chance any more than I would, or than this officer did.

 

Now for those of you who immediately jump on the "if a cop points a gun at you and says don't move, would you move?" well you can't assume the answer would be no, otherwise you're countering your own argument.

This situation is panicked for both the officers and the suspects, this isn't one sided.

If someone starts shouting "stay there, don't move or I will shoot you" you're not going to remain calm and collected and go "ok officer sure" your heart will be racing just as much as the officer's is.

 

 

I don't have to assume the answer would be no, I know it would be because I've been there.

When I was ordered out of my car at gun point during a traffic stop, sure my heart was racing. But I wasn't "panicked" and at no point was I afraid for my life, because I knew that I did nothing wrong, I knew that I had no intention of hurting the officers, and I knew that I would comply with any instructions I was given and be compliant, as required by law and because it's the right thing to do. I also know that complying with their orders would show them that I was not a threat, and that they would not fear for their lives, and that they would not harm me.

 

After I complied with their orders and answered their questions, it turns out they had reasonable suspicion that I had robbed the bank I had just pulled out of. I answered their questions, showed them the cash and ATM receipt in my wallet, and was on my way in less than 10 minutes with their apologies.

 

That's how it works when you are a law abiding citizen that embraces your civic duty to understand the fundamentals of the law and aid public servants whenever possible.

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by johnclark1102

I think this point is irrelevant. The officer doesn't have the luxury of evaluating the situation one second at a time in freeze frame. He has a fraction of a second to asses, decide, and react, he must do that based on the information he believes to be true at the time, and if he makes the wrong choice he could be dead. If it was your life on the line you wouldn't take that chance any more than I would, or than this officer did.

We're not living the moment though are we, so it's perfectly relevant. In an investigation do you think they will say "video evidence? No let's go off gut instinct" 

This is why I said "I agree with those saying that the officer was acting in a very difficult situation, yes he did give clear orders, yes he did have a split second to decide." Please don't take what I say out of context.

 

"If it was your life on the line"....Actually this is where you're 100% wrong. Factually wrong. Why? Because I'm so heavily against guns, the usage of guns, the views that guns make people safe. And I'm very much against any form of violence too. If I was in such a situation the last thing I would have is a gun, and the last thing I would do is shout "if you move I will shoot you". The way this officer reacted and the way I would react if I was a police officer are worlds apart.

 

I don't have to assume the answer would be no, I know it would be because I've been there.

So you've been pulled over as a known convicted felon with a gun in your glove compartment right? That's what you're saying.

 

You are assuming again, you can't argue that you're not. Yes alright you've been in a similar situation, but not the exact same situation. And therefore you're applying one experience to something else.

The average law abiding citizen cannot possibly say they know what is going through the mind of a criminal because they are not one. You can only assume what this person was experiencing.

 

 

 

The fact that this and almost* every other shooting shows that whether it involves black or white people, is the fact that you must listen to law enforcement, they need to make sure themselves and their partner go home that night also, if they see a weapon they are obviously going to get a bit more strict and you should follow all their orders, if not then you must pay the consequences its for their safety and yours, but if you make a clear threat they have to take action before it is to late. 

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by JaredL

Regardless, I agree with those saying that the officer was acting in a very difficult situation, yes he did give clear orders, yes he did have a split second to decide. But I also agree with those that he made the wrong choice.

For those saying "he could have been ready to attack the officer" yes, could have been. But open the video in full screen and keep pausing the video every second, paying VERY close attention to the movement.

He gets out of the car, hands already up before he's even out. Hands still up when he gets shot at least 5 or 6 times. THAT is unjustified. Ok so he disobeyed an order, you give him a new one to turn around with his hands up not shoot him. This officer has a nasty trigger finger, not a well thought out response.

 

Now for those of you who immediately jump on the "if a cop points a gun at you and says don't move, would you move?" well you can't assume the answer would be no, otherwise you're countering your own argument.

This situation is panicked for both the officers and the suspects, this isn't one sided.

If someone starts shouting "stay there, don't move or I will shoot you" you're not going to remain calm and collected and go "ok officer sure" your heart will be racing just as much as the officer's is. In that time he made a decision to get out of the car (maybe to attack the officer, maybe to turn and face the car, maybe to get on the ground, stop assuming he was going for a kill).

 

Interesting food for thought here....if you have to resort to shouting, you've already lost control of the situation.

 

 

EDIT: I just watched the video on the BBC website (audio quality is better)

Quote: "I'm gonna open the door and get on the ground"

 

Not that anyone cares about my opinion, but after reading that I had to say that  you are right, but not for American standards. Every national police force has its unique ways of policing, for example in Brazil they crush in favelas on those cool black APCs and shoot with assault rifles anyone who  resembles a gang member and failed to get down in a second. 

 

So in American way of using deadly force this wasn't a merciless and pointless murder (which do exist undoubtedly). Judging by the reason, the multiple warnings, and a possible threat, I'd say the police left the suspect a possibility to save his life. From American police it's already a favor. 

 

Thanks to Lt.Flash I read an interview with the U.S. oldest cop on the force. The guy says he has never used a gun during his service, he just overpowers all the bad guys. Nowadays cops are weak and scared of unarmed conflict, he says. Maybe he's right. I wouldn't want to get involved in a fight myself... 

O im sure this will blow up into a i hate police frenzy.People just love to hate the police and be spoon fed bullshit by the media.That was a justified shooting.Why don`t people understand that if you just follow direction the police officer tells you you will not get shot to pieces.If you are innocent you wont run,lie or not follow directions given.

 

 

My guess would be he is a convicted felon in possession of a loaded firearm.Which in New jersey carry's a minimal of a 5 year sentence.And he was not about to just sit in the car and be taken in.I don`t think he wanted to die (Suicide by cop) he was just caught in the moment and panicked which caused him to made a mistake that cost him his life.

 

 

But now a days the cop is always wrong anyway regardless of facts so W/E.

Look I get where you're going with this, and no I wouldn't get out. How I see this and how you see it are completely different. The cop had the guys gun already. The guy got out with his hands up even though he was told not to, but I believe he should not have shot him so quick, especially 6 times. The adrenaline rush got to him

 

 

Did you watch this vid spreilly posted above, should help you and others understand why you have to comply.  If you don't it's your fault from that point on-wards.

 

http://americanpatriotpost.us/anti-cop-protestor-has-dramatic-change-of-heart-after-use-of-force-training-with-police-video/

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

Everyone is free to have and express their own opinion, even if others disagree with it.

 

 

We're not living the moment though are we, so it's perfectly relevant. In an investigation do you think they will say "video evidence? No let's go off gut instinct" 

This is why I said "I agree with those saying that the officer was acting in a very difficult situation, yes he did give clear orders, yes he did have a split second to decide." Please don't take what I say out of context.

 

I didn't take what you said out of context. The video evidence is helpful in determining the whole truth, but it isn't what the investigators will use to determine if this officer committed a crime, because they can't. As I explained in an earlier post, the law for use of force in the US only requires that a person have a reasonable belief that someone intends to harm them, based on what they know at the moment they make that determination. Whatever the truth turns out to be after that point isn't relevant to the investigation or whether a law was broken by the officer. We can review the video footage frame by frame all day long, but it won't change the circumstances of what the officer believed in the fraction of a second he had to make his decision, and that's what he must be judged on under the law. The video footage up to that point supports the narrative that the suspect was non compliant and the officer had reasonable cause to believe the suspect intended to harm him, whether he actually did or not is not relevant under the law.

 

"If it was your life on the line"....Actually this is where you're 100% wrong. Factually wrong. Why? Because I'm so heavily against guns, the usage of guns, the views that guns make people safe. And I'm very much against any form of violence too. If I was in such a situation the last thing I would have is a gun, and the last thing I would do is shout "if you move I will shoot you". The way this officer reacted and the way I would react if I was a police officer are worlds apart.

 

 

Actually this is where you're 100% wrong. Factually wrong. Why? Because if you were in this situation, you would be an American police officer and you would be required to have a gun, and be willing to use force against people to affect an arrest and to save other people's lives and property. Since you're not an American police officer and you're not in a life or death moment, you can only speculate and assume how you would react under the circumstances that this officer faced. 

 

So you've been pulled over as a known convicted felon with a gun in your glove compartment right? That's what you're saying.

 

You are assuming again, you can't argue that you're not. Yes alright you've been in a similar situation, but not the exact same situation. And therefore you're applying one experience to something else.

The average law abiding citizen cannot possibly say they know what is going through the mind of a criminal because they are not one. You can only assume what this person was experiencing.

 

 

No, I haven't been pulled over as a known convicted felon with a gun in my glove compartment, and that's not what I was saying nor am I assuming anything when discussing my personal, first hand experience. I have been pulled over with a gun on my person however. I've also been pulled over and held at gun point by multiple officers, as I described in my previous post.

 

Your previous post postulated that, "...if a cop points a gun at you and says don't move, would you move?" well you can't assume the answer would be no..."

 

My post answered that by stating that in my personal case, I don't have to assume the answer would be no, because I have in fact had a cop point a gun at me and tell me not to move. And, I didn't move; no speculation or assumptions required. No other circumstances or conditions were included in your hypothetical scenario, nor in my personal experience.

 

I also never said that I know what is going through the mind of a criminal. Quite the opposite, I said that I know what is going through the mind of a police officer.

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by johnclark1102

Just imagine, how most of these situations could have been avoided if people complied. Every cop is gonna be a lot more aware and maybe paranoid because of what's been happening to LEOs as of late. So do yourself a favor and just listen and comply. It doesn't matter if you respect the police or not, respect your own life and listen to them and their instructions

Everyone is free to have and express their own opinion, even if others disagree with it.

 This I do agree with.

 

I didn't take what you said out of context. The video evidence is helpful, but it isn't what the investigators will use to determine if this officer committed a crime, because they can't. As I explained in an earlier post, the law for use of force in the US only requires that a person have a reasonable belief that someone intends to harm them, based on what they know at the moment they make that determination. Whatever the truth turns out to be after that point isn't relevant to the investigation or whether a law was broken by the officer. We can review the video footage frame by frame all day long, but it won't change the circumstances of what the officer believed in the fraction of a second he had to make his decision, and that's what he must be judged on under the law.

 Which is where my issue lies, if the law is so hopelessly vague like this what's to stop an officer from brutally murdering someone and saying "I felt threatened, honest".

The video evidence should be used, in a court evidence is key otherwise you've got the word of 1 against others. The guy is now dead, he can't testify against the officer. So this officer gets way with killing someone. If the video evidence was used (and for simplicity sake let's say it was 100% clear the officer did not need to shoot) then that officer would get punished, which is lawful. At least in my eyes.

 

Actually this is where you're 100% wrong. Factually wrong. Why? Because if you were in this situation, you would be an American police officer and you would be required to have a gun, and be willing to use force against people to affect an arrest and to save other people's lives and property. Since you're not an American police officer and you're not in a life or death moment, you can only speculate and assume how you would react under the circumstances that this officer faced.

At no point did either of us specify the exact situation, nor was "America" ever mentioned. If you look carefully you said "if your life was on the line" not "If you were this police officer", and I said "If I was a police officer" not "If I was a US cop". And just for completeness, suppose I WAS a US cop. Why should I be willing to use force against someone? Lethal force to the extent of 6 or so bullets I should add. That's disgusting to even consider. I mean think about that for a second, it's a crime to kill someone but when a police officer does it suddenly it's ok because he has a badge and he is required to use lethal force? I can't come to terms with that I'm afraid. But then I never really have agreed with US policing, because I'm not American and thus it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Correct, I can only speculate, but I can speculate on how I would react more than you can by matter of the fact we have no idea who each other are, would you agree?

Which is why I say you're wrong to assume that I would "not take the chance" as you suggested. Fair comment?

No, I haven't been pulled over as a known convicted felon with a gun in my glove compartment, and that's not what I was saying nor am I assuming anything when discussing my personal, first hand experience. I have been pulled over with a gun on my person however. I've also been pulled over and held at gun point by multiple officers, as I described in my previous post.

 

Your previous post postulated that, "...if a cop points a gun at you and says don't move, would you move?" well you can't assume the answer would be no..."

 

My post answered that by stating that in my personal case, I don't have to assume the answer would be no, because I have in fact had a cop point a gun at me and tell me not to move. And, I didn't move; no speculation or assumptions required. No other circumstances or conditions were included in your hypothetical scenario, nor in my personal experience.

 

I also never said that I know what is going through the mind of a criminal. Quite the opposite, I said that I know what is going through the mind of a police officer.

Sorry, perhaps I should have specified I was referring to those commenting that exact sentence in respect to the given scenario rather than as a generalisation. That's an error on my behalf.

To defend Sam's "conflicting commands" point, the officer did say to his partner to get them out of the car, but then says that they need to stay in the car. I can see how this might be confusing.

 

While I agree with everything that johnclark has been saying, I think this was poor judgement by the officer. The man did disobey direct orders, but he did not pose an immediate threat. It may have seemed this way at the time, but watching the video clearly shows that he did not. The suspect got out of the car with this hands visible, he did not reach for anything. He did not lunge at the officer, and the officer was even able to back off creating enough distance between him and the suspect to defend himself. If the officer was able to secure the gun, then I think (me personally, with no real life law enforcement training or experience) they should have backed off and initiated a felony stop. It obviously is very difficult to control the suspects while they are in the car, so they should have ordered them out from a distance, not from right next to the door.

 

Also everything involving race in this article is complete bullshit, and I'm glad we can all agree on that. Illusionary's title for this thread is much better than the title of the article.

Firstly, I'd like to say that none of us here realise what it was like for the cop. Sure, we have our video evidence. Sure, we have our assumptions. Sure, we've been shot at during traffic stops in LCPD:FR. But let me say, the level of panic you feel in game will be nothing compared to a real life situation.

Others have already stated all the risk factors, so I won't go through that.

Imagine how you would be feeling in such a situation. Be honest with yourself. Then magnify that feeling tenfold. Did the cop have reasonable belief of the possibility of grievous bodily harm, to him, or others? Of course he did. Was shooting him the wrong thing to do? Of course it was.

But the point we are missing here is, 'Was shooting him an intentional murder, and this officer is abusive, or did the cop simply make a mistake or wrong decision under extreme pressure and fear for his life?' We've all made mistakes. Many times. This mistake was just terrible bad luck. But does it make the mistake any worse a mistake then the mistakes we make everyday? No! So why aren't we all in jail for criminal offences?

Oh, and that article. I can't imaging HOW they forgot to include all the factors, and why the cop is in danger, or how it even needs to say that Jerame was black. The officer in question was black. Taking all the risk factors in account, it doesn't seem racial to me. Man, the media feeds on misery, don't they?

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by Boeingtriple7

 Which is where my issue lies, if the law is so hopelessly vague like this what's to stop an officer from brutally murdering someone and saying "I felt threatened, honest".

The video evidence should be used, in a court evidence is key otherwise you've got the word of 1 against others. The guy is now dead, he can't testify against the officer. So this officer gets way with killing someone. If the video evidence was used (and for simplicity sake let's say it was 100% clear the officer did not need to shoot) then that officer would get punished, which is lawful. At least in my eyes.

 

I don't think the law is hopelessly vague, and the video evidence may be used in court, However, the video will be used to show what the officer knew at the time, and why he came to the belief that the suspect intended to harm him. As I said before, freeze framing the video one second at a time as the suspect raises his hands may lead us to the whole truth, but that is not what the law judges someone on.

 

As for stopping an officer from murdering someone and claiming he felt threatened, he has to be able to back up that claim before a jury of other people who will look at the facts the officer had at the time and determine if the officer's feeling was reasonable. If the jury finds that an officer's actions were not reasonable, he get's convicted, just like anyone else.

 

 

At no point did either of us specify the exact situation, nor was "America" ever mentioned. If you look carefully you said "if your life was on the line" not "If you were this police officer", and I said "If I was a police officer" not "If I was a US cop".

 

 

For this part of the conversation, I was working under the impression we were discussing how we would react under the situation presented in this incident, since your post was specifically discussing this officer's actions.

 

 

And just for completeness, suppose I WAS a US cop. Why should I be willing to use force against someone?

 

 

Because as a police officer, you are sworn to enforce the law and arrest people who break the law, and to defend the lives and property of the people around you. Sometimes that requires the use of force, which officers are granted as part of their powers of arrest.

 

Lethal force to the extent of 6 or so bullets I should add. That's disgusting to even consider.

 

 

No, it really isn't disgusting. Since you're form the UK and have expressed your displeasure for firearms, I'm going to work under the logical deduction that you don't have any first hand experience with using firearms.

 

I do have that experience, and I have defensive tactics training from both a citizen self defense and police tactics point of view. 6 bullets is not excessive in the real world, and doesn't even always result in the death of the person being shot.

Most people without first hand firearms experience have nothing to go by but the false images they see on TV and in the movies; the false belief that anyone with a firearm can shoot people in the arm or leg with 100 percent accuracy at any distance and under any circumstances, and that a single shot to a persons's extremity will leave the falling to the ground screaming in pain, no longer posing a threat. The reality is, that's not at all how it works in the real world.

 

I've used this video in another thread a while back, and there are countless other videos to illustrate the point, but this is one of the most recent ones that happened near my city.

 

 

In the video, the officer fires 15 rounds. Despite putting that much lead downrange, his adrenaline rush, stress, his footing, a moving target, shooting through a car window, and all of the other factors involved only allowed him to hit the suspect 5 times. 5 hits out of 15 shots, that's how it works in the real world most of the time. 

 

In the same video, despite being shot 5 times including twice in the face and twice in the chest, the suspect not only SURVIVED to be convicted, but he was not screaming in pain or incapacitated after being shot in the face and chest. His adrenaline rush suppressed his injuries, and he was coherent and compliant after the shooting, exiting the vehicle and laying down on the ground when commanded to do so by the officer.

 

That's why everyone with firearms defense training is trained to aim center mass (largest target) and to keep shooting until the target is no longer an active threat. Sometimes that takes 2 shots, sometimes it takes 6, sometimes it takes 15. Sometimes a person is still capable of being a threat, even after they have been shot multiple times.

 

 

I mean think about that for a second, it's a crime to kill someone but when a police officer does it suddenly it's ok because he has a badge and he is required to use lethal force? I can't come to terms with that I'm afraid. But then I never really have agreed with US policing, because I'm not American and thus it doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

It's a crime to MURDER someone, not to kill them. Killing someone in self defense is not a crime, whether you are a police officer or a civilian. Police officers are bound by the same deadly force laws that civilians are in this country. The only slight exception, is that police officers have the right to arrest people and civilians don't, and sometimes the use of deadly force happens as part of the arrest. But when it comes to the use of lethal force in general, police officers and civilians alike must have a reasonable belief that the person they use force against poses an imminent threat of harm; police are not special just because they have a badge.

 

I've never really agreed with the UK style of policing, because I'm not from the UK and it doesn't make sense to me. Different cultures, different experiences. That's why I would never attempt to second guess a UK officer's actions. I don't know anything about the law, or cultural values, or procedures in that country.

 

 

Correct, I can only speculate, but I can speculate on how I would react more than you can by matter of the fact we have no idea who each other are, would you agree?

Which is why I say you're wrong to assume that I would "not take the chance" as you suggested. Fair comment?

Sorry, perhaps I should have specified I was referring to those commenting that exact sentence in respect to the given scenario rather than as a generalisation. That's an error on my behalf.

 

 

You're right, I don't know who you are or how you'd react. But, I believe that any human being's survival instinct would kick in if they were faced with the circumstances this officer faced, and any human being would be willing to use deadly force if they thought it necessary to save their own life. I assume that you are a normal human being.

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by johnclark1102

I watched the part of him stepping out many times now and it's the lights reflecting off his hand. He never points anything at the officer.

 

Do you know for a fact he doesn't have another weapon on him? Would you be willing to bet your life on him not having a knife or another gone on his person? After he already had a gun in the car, I wouldn't.

 

--------------

On the other hand, I think it's badass that cops are using CAR. 

I don't think the law is hopelessly vague, and the video evidence may be used in court, However, the video will be used to show what the officer knew at the time, and why he came to the belief that the suspect intended to harm him. As I said before, freeze framing the video one second at a time as the suspect raises his hands may lead us to the whole truth, but that is not what the law judges someone on.

 

As for stopping an officer from murdering someone and claiming he felt threatened, he has to be able to back up that claim before a jury of other people who will look at the facts the officer had at the time and determine if the officer's feeling was reasonable. If the jury finds that an officer's actions were not reasonable, he get's convicted, just like anyone else.

 If the law still takes into account the video evidence then ok, the way you initially worded it seemed as if the officer's word protected him from such evidence.

 

No, it really isn't disgusting. Since you're form the UK and have expressed your displeasure for firearms, I'm going to work under the logical deduction that you don't have any first hand experience with using firearms.

Your deduction would be 100% correct, I have not got nor will ever want firearms training. I'm one of those who firmly believes you don't need firearms to get by in this world, as is evident by the fact we do exactly that in the UK. We get by without them. But for sake of saving argument and derailment we'll not go down the "guns are good/guns are bad" discussion. To each their own and so on.

 

It's a crime to MURDER someone, not to kill them. Killing someone in self defense is not a crime, whether you are a police officer or a civilian. Police officers are bound by the same use of force laws that civilians are in this country. The only slight exception, is that police officers have the right to arrest people and civilians don't, and sometimes the use of deadly force happens as part of the arrest. But when it comes to the use of lethal force in general, police officers and civilians alike must have a reasonable belief that the person they use force against poses an imminent threat of harm; police are not special just because they have a badge.

 

I've never really agreed with the UK style of policing, because I'm not from the UK and it doesn't make sense to me. Different cultures, different experiences. That's why I would never attempt to second guess a UK officer's actions. I don't know anything about the law, or cultural values, or procedures in that country.

This is where the UK differs from the US then, because in the UK you can only plead self defence if the force used was justified, and even then you're not exempt from killing someone.

In fact...let me find my legal notes, I had to do an exam on self defence....where are they....

Ah, here we go:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime".

So here, you cannot kill someone in self defence, you'll still be prosecuted (under a lesser charge of manslaughter, rather than murder), if the jury believe the force was reasonable. And obviously because we don't allow firearms here in any sense, a firearm as a self defence is not reasonable.

 

 

Please don't think I'm being critical and suggesting US policing is wrong here. As you very rightly say, different cultures different experiences. I just personally think even given the US policing, that he could have perhaps made a different decision and not killed the man. If his mindset wasn't "he's a known criminal oh he might shoot me, I should defend myself" and instead was more a case of "I should attempt to negotiate and keep control of the suspect even if he so chooses to leave the vehicle." then we might be seeing a much more pleasing outcome to this scenario, would you not agree?

 

You're right, I don't know who you are or how you'd react. But, I believe that any human being's survival instinct would kick in if they were faced with the circumstances this officer faced, and any human being would be willing to use deadly force if they thought it necessary to save their own life. I assume that you are a normal human being.

Well....define "normal human being".

The thing here is like you've said, different cultures. My survival instinct would be considerably different to yours because I live in a country where we don't allow guns, and as such this level of using deadly force as a necessary action is way beyond what I consider necessary.

Had the officers been wearing body cameras, we could have known exactly what the officer did or did not see. *take the hint, police departments/local/state governments*

 

 

 

I think just based on the nature of the incident that its being justified could go either way. 

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

"If it was your life on the line"....Actually this is where you're 100% wrong. Factually wrong. Why? Because I'm so heavily against guns, the usage of guns, the views that guns make people safe. And I'm very much against any form of violence too. If I was in such a situation the last thing I would have is a gun, and the last thing I would do is shout "if you move I will shoot you". The way this officer reacted and the way I would react if I was a police officer are worlds apart.

Just for this, you have my like, sir.

 

Actually, I think (personal opinion of course) that a police officer shouting "Don't you f*cking move or I'll shoot!" is making the situation more chaotic just as much as the guy not complying. What's the point of being vulgar, and threatening immediately? He could simply say "Keep your hands out and get out of the car slowly".

Actually, I think (personal opinion of course) that a police officer shouting "Don't you f*cking move or I'll shoot!" is making the situation more chaotic just as much as the guy not complying. What's the point of being vulgar, and threatening immediately? He could simply say "Keep your hands out and get out of the car slowly".

lol it's not that easy, the cop was in the moment and wanted to get his point across. Plus I doubt the guy would've done anything different had the cop politely said "Keep your hands out and get out of the car slowly." It might even make the guy think he could get a jump on the cop. Just meh opinion