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

 

Probably, but in this case it would be a lot clearer that the cop is not at fault, that's where I'm getting at.

 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.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough earlier, what I meant about the use of the video is that the law only cares about what happened up until the point where the officer decided to shoot. The law only cares if his decision was reasonable given the circumstances known to him at the time. So we can sit here and freeze frame the video all day long, but the fact that the suspect turned out not to have a weapon at that moment isn't relevant to the case, because the officer didn't know it at the time and in fact had the reasonable belief that the suspect did have a weapon.

 

That's all I meant about the use of the video, only the part leading up the moment of the shooting is legally relevant to whether or not the officer committed a crime.

 

 

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.

 

That conversation would simply be another example of different cultures.

 

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.

 

 

Yeah, the US allows the use of force, including deadly force, under a variety of circumstances. It all has one thing in common though, the only thing that matters is what the actor reasonably believed to be the truth at the time he made the decision to use force.

 

The specifics vary from state to state, but here in Texas for example, I am legally allowed to use force, including deadly force, against someone attempting to break into my home, car, or place of employment. That would be considered justified because it's reasonable to believe that someone breaking into my home is doing so for the purpose of stealing my property or harming me or my family, and I am allowed to use force to protect people and property.

 

There's also this section that establishes that you cannot be prosecuted if the use of force is reasonable as defined by the other statues: Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

 

If you'd like to get a headache reading legal BS, here's the sections of the Texas statues most related to this discussion: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

 

9.31 covers use of force in general, and 9.32 specifically covers use of deadly force.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

I agree that a different mindset from the officer might have led to a different outcome. However, in this case, the suspect was in fact a known criminal who might have shot the officer, and the officer was mentally prepared to and had the right to defend himself. If the officer didn't have this mindset upon realizing who the suspect was, the outcome of this incident might have been a dead police officer. The loss of life is tragic either way, but it is a reality of police work that you must be prepared to defend yourself, with deadly force sometimes.

 

 

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.

 

 

My definition of a normal human being's survival instinct is that if you believe someone is going to kill you, you try to kill them first, by any means necessary. That doesn't just relate to firearms. Deadly force can be a blade, blunt object, or even your hands and feet. If you believe you are about to die, it's normal to fight back, and the reality is that sometimes the only way to stop the other person from killing you is to kill them first.

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. 

 

 

I'm a big supporter of body and car cameras, because more often than not they show that the officer was right and the suspect was wrong. We've had several officers in my area cleared recently when suspects alleged misconduct,claiming that officers said they'd let someone go for a sexual favor, or that the officer mistreated them, etc, and the body camera footage turned out to prove that the suspect was lying.

 

However, the body camera solution is not as simple as local governments taking note of the benefits.

 

Who's going to pay for those cameras? They're not cheap and most agencies are already on a tight budget. My local Sheriff's Office is one of the largest in the country and they have officers using personal money to buy personal rifles and shotguns to carry on duty because the agency doesn't have the funding to buy department owned weapons. We don't have the funding to pay 2 Deputies to ride in a car together, so instead we send them out alone. If they're lucky, people like me volunteer as Reserve Deputies and put on the uniform and go out to do the job for no pay just to increase the manpower on the streets and help serve our communities.

 

What about the privacy rights issues for the general public? What about people who are not involved in an incident being recorded? They are not under investigation, they are not being detained, and yet they are being recorded on both audio and video just because they happen to be in the 7-11 store when the officer walks in to get his coffee, or they happen to be at the restaurant the officer is eating at, or they happen to be walking by on the street while the officer is handling a call. There are a lot of people in this country that believe these types of things are a violation of a citizens right to privacy.

There's also the unintended consequences that people don't think about given the current climate against police in this country. Many officers I know have said they'd be happy to wear a body camera, but if they do, discretion goes away. Everyone gets a ticket or everyone goes to jail. If everything is on video, they don't need an over zealous defense attorney pulling up past videos to try and claim that an officer is racist, or sexist, or treats people differently in any way. So, everyone gets treated the same; everyone gets a ticket or everyone goes to jail.

I'm a big supporter of body and car cameras, because more often than not they show that the officer was right and the suspect was wrong. We've had several officers in my area cleared recently when suspects alleged misconduct,claiming that officers said they'd let someone go for a sexual favor, or that the officer mistreated them, etc, and the body camera footage turned out to prove that the suspect was lying.

 

However, the body camera solution is not as simple as local governments taking note of the benefits.

 

Who's going to pay for those cameras? They're not cheap and most agencies are already on a tight budget. My local Sheriff's Office is one of the largest in the country and they have officers using personal money to buy personal rifles and shotguns to carry on duty because the agency doesn't have the funding to buy department owned weapons. We don't have the funding to pay 2 Deputies to ride in a car together, so instead we send them out alone. If they're lucky, people like me volunteer as Reserve Deputies and put on the uniform and go out to do the job for no pay just to increase the manpower on the streets and help serve our communities.

 

What about the privacy rights issues for the general public? What about people who are not involved in an incident being recorded? They are not under investigation, they are not being detained, and yet they are being recorded on both audio and video just because they happen to be in the 7-11 store when the officer walks in to get his coffee, or they happen to be at the restaurant the officer is eating at, or they happen to be walking by on the street while the officer is handling a call. There are a lot of people in this country that believe these types of things are a violation of a citizens right to privacy.

There's also the unintended consequences that people don't think about given the current climate against police in this country. Many officers I know have said they'd be happy to wear a body camera, but if they do, discretion goes away. Everyone gets a ticket or everyone goes to jail. If everything is on video, they don't need an over zealous defense attorney pulling up past videos to try and claim that an officer is racist, or sexist, or treats people differently in any way. So, everyone gets treated the same; everyone gets a ticket or everyone goes to jail.

 

It's a win-win. The truthful party is validated, the lying party is invalidated.

 

Cost for me is the biggest obstacle to implementing this. And I think the real costs will come from storage. One of these cameras costs somewhere between $50-a few hundred dollars. But that's a one time purchase per-officer. Storage will be needed as long as we have the cameras. Taser offers a cloud storage service for departments that use their cameras, but I don't know the cost. Perhaps states and counties and/or local governments could split the costs. Maybe each state could provide the funds to store the footage if localities purchase the cameras. 

 

I'm strongly anti-surveillance, but I don't really see it as a huge issue in this case. The cameras only see things that the officer sees. It is a little concerning that footage of me could potentially be kept by the government for a given period of time but I think to reign in police misconduct and false misconduct reports it is an acceptable practice.

 

I don't see why discretion would be completely eliminated. Just because an event occurred on camera doesn't mean that officers can't give people breaks. We have dashcams all over now, but people get off on traffic violations all the time.

I'm strongly anti-surveillance, but I don't really see it as a huge issue in this case. The cameras only see things that the officer sees. It is a little concerning that footage of me could potentially be kept by the government for a given period of time but I think to reign in police misconduct and false misconduct reports it is an acceptable practice.

The body cam isn't really surveillance, it meant to protect the officer & YOU. Plus your only on camera whenever you make contact with the police, so you really shouldn't be worried about the government storing it, unless you're a trouble maker lol

The officer has my full support, this shotting was justified completely, why?

1. It's the middle of the night, dark and difficult to see, ergo making the police officers job harder.

2. The suspect was clearly disobeying orders, this may sound cliche, but for evry action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

3. Come on now this should be obvious, if he hadn't ran the stop sign in the first place and not been carrying a gun (which he was prohibited from carrying one) all of this could've been avoided.

Edited January 23, 201511 yr by Chester199

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.

No I don't know that but what I do know was he had nothing in his hands and they were up. If he had quickly put his arm in his jacket or in his pants then I could see why the officer fired multiple rounds into the guy but the fact is he had his hands up. It's clear this officer had a huge adrenaline rush, panicked and shot the guy.

No I don't know that but what I do know was he had nothing in his hands and they were up. If he had quickly put his arm in his jacket or in his pants then I could see why the officer fired multiple rounds into the guy but the fact is he had his hands up. It's clear this officer had a huge adrenaline rush, panicked and shot the guy.

 

How do you know his hands were empty though. I can't tell for crap in that video, let alone at night. All I can see is his hands up. He comes at a cop, regardless of where his hands are, disobeying the cop's orders, and then he gets shot. 

 

Now, I'm just being hypothetical and have no idea what happened or what was the outcome. Could the cop have used a bit more discretion? Maybe. But the shooting was completely justified. 

Did he have considerate reason to suspect the possibility of death or serious bodily harm to him or others? I believe so.

Did he state his intention to shoot if he disobeyed? Yes, he did.

The shooting should then be legal under U.S. Law. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not stating any opinion, I'm just stating that legally he looks like he's in the right.