A tense scene when a volunteer Sherriff's Constable approached a vehicle after a traffic stop and the situation ends with shots fired and a missing wounded suspect. Do you think the shots fired were justified in this scenario being that the vehicle could be considered a weapon?. Thoughts, opinions?.

 

 

The shooting was not justified, it could've been averted in my opinion, I am not an expert on law enforcement procedures but here are my 2 cents.

- The officer(s) should've ordered the driver to switch the engine off and put his hands on the dashboard where they can see them.

- The driver was clearly agitated at getting questioned if he had a weapon in the vehicle, which shows that he either has something to hide or had a short temper.

- The driver also refused to exit the vehicle on the premises that a strong scent of marijuana was coming from the car, he did not want the car to be searched or himself to be searched, which yet again, he probably had something to hide.

- The officers were not in life-threatening danger, you can see at 3:20, the officer was quick enough to move but he started to fire even though he was out of the path of the car, and the shooting started at 3:21, with no threat to anyone around them, unless a dent in the patrol car is enough ground to wound him.

- They were volunteer police officers and not full time so they were not as used to this situation (only a plausibility, not a fact).

In conclusion: The shooting probably could've been averted had the officers asked the man to put his hands on the dashboard and switch off the engine.  Completely justified if the driver came at them with the car, but that wasn't the case. Law abiding citizens who've done nothing wrong aren't going to dart from the police. The officers might've shot because he could've run them over, but at that angle, the car wouldn't be able to turn to hit the officers, and the driver would probably be dead had he tried that.

 

35 minutes ago, TheLoneRanger said:

The shooting was not justified, it could've been averted in my opinion, I am not an expert on law enforcement procedures but here are my 2 cents.

- The officer(s) should've ordered the driver to switch the engine off and put his hands on the dashboard where they can see them.

- The driver was clearly agitated at getting questioned if he had a weapon in the vehicle, which shows that he either has something to hide or had a short temper.

- The driver also refused to exit the vehicle on the premises that a strong scent of marijuana was coming from the car, he did not want the car to be searched or himself to be searched, which yet again, he probably had something to hide.

- The officers were not in life-threatening danger, you can see at 3:20, the officer was quick enough to move but he started to fire even though he was out of the path of the car, and the shooting started at 3:21, with no threat to anyone around them, unless a dent in the patrol car is enough ground to wound him.

- They were volunteer police officers and not full time so they were not as used to this situation (only a plausibility, not a fact).

In conclusion: The shooting probably could've been averted had the officers asked the man to put his hands on the dashboard and switch off the engine.  Completely justified if the driver came at them with the car, but that wasn't the case. Law abiding citizens who've done nothing wrong aren't going to dart from the police. The officers might've shot because he could've run them over, but at that angle, the car wouldn't be able to turn to hit the officers, and the driver would probably be dead had he tried that.

 

 

Yeah, i honestly agree. The big factor for me personally was the vehicle being in reverse, and not forward and driving towards either the Deputy or the Constable. 

1 minute ago, LCPD McGee said:

 

Yeah, i honestly agree. The big factor for me personally was the vehicle being in reverse, and not forward and driving towards either the Deputy or the Constable. 

I can see why the officer shot, but he should've demonstrated more constraint, he should've adapted to the situation as it went along and not shot prematurely unless there was a certain threat, which there really wasn't. At least they only wounded him, but there are too many interpretations that can be drawn.

A few things that you have to look at here. With my experience in Law Enforcement here are my thoughts...

 

 

• There should never be a volunteer law enforcement position in any agency. Period. Being in a full time position I get hundreds of hours of training every year I will be wiling to guarantee that the volunteer does not.  (My agency does not have this position)
• Vehicles are tricky in themselves. I'm not going to Monday night quarterback an officers decision...
  • I wasn't there 
  • everyone can sit here all day for hours critiquing the officers decision that he had to make in seconds.  
• With vehicles you have to determine was the "perp" in the vehicle 
  • A - Trying to get away from you
  • B - Trying to harm you
• With that being said I will say this once the shots were fired the Perp drove straight and escaped that way. Why when they asked him to get out of the car he backed up towards the police vehicles and other officers? Why not drive forward?

@MagsJust an FYI, this guy wasn't a volunteer officer who gets qualified through donations and a handshake with the sheriff. He was a state constable. They are supervised by SLED and they get annual in service training. He also had 5 years experience as a patrol officer, and has been serving as a constable for 5 years as well. I agree that the stereotypical volunteer LEO position shouldn't exist, but I see no problem if they're just as qualified as full time LEOs.

5 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

@MagsJust an FYI, this guy wasn't a volunteer officer who gets qualified through donations and a handshake with the sheriff. He was a state constable. They are supervised by SLED and they get annual in service training. He also had 5 years experience as a patrol officer, and has been serving as a constable for 5 years as well. I agree that the stereotypical volunteer LEO position shouldn't exist, but I see no problem if they're just as qualified as full time LEOs.

Well now that makes more sense

Some states Reserves go through full academies.

 

In MI they do not, but they do not have full LEO authority, and cannot operate on their own.

15 hours ago, Mags said:

A few things that you have to look at here. With my experience in Law Enforcement here are my thoughts...

 

 

• There should never be a volunteer law enforcement position in any agency. Period. Being in a full time position I get hundreds of hours of training every year I will be wiling to guarantee that the volunteer does not.  (My agency does not have this position)
• Vehicles are tricky in themselves. I'm not going to Monday night quarterback an officers decision...
  • I wasn't there 
  • everyone can sit here all day for hours critiquing the officers decision that he had to make in seconds.  
• With vehicles you have to determine was the "perp" in the vehicle 
  • A - Trying to get away from you
  • B - Trying to harm you
• With that being said I will say this once the shots were fired the Perp drove straight and escaped that way. Why when they asked him to get out of the car he backed up towards the police vehicles and other officers? Why not drive forward?

In Harris County (Houston, Texas) Reserve Deputies do everything that regular officers do including SWAT, Fugitive Warrant, etc. They put in a minimum of 20 hours per month though most frankly do it like an unpaid second job with 30+ hours per week. By and large, they are every bit as competent as full time LEOs. We'll have to agree to disagree here though I certainly can appreciate your perspective on the matter.