I am very conscious of the fact that I am carrying and that I want to keep LE completely tranquillo. A year and a half or two ago I was T-boned by a guy who blatantly ran a red light. I was glad he hit my right front fender and not my son's door, but was shook up and pissed at myself that I didn't see him coming. I immediately called 911 and reported then stayed in the car and waited for LE to arrive. When he arrived I gave my permit on top with license and registration below. When asked I explained it was on my right hip and that I had just stayed in the car to wait for them as the other driver was a little erratic and I wanted to avoid any conflict. He said, "Good plan." and left it at that. After taking both our statements, (older guy admitted that he "might have blown the light") the officer talked about whether or not we needed to call a tow, suggested my Tacoma might be drivable slow on surface streets. I asked if it was okay to get out of the car to check it out. The officer said, "Sure, no problem." It seemed kinda silly to be so deferential at the time, and it seems even more so in retrospect, but I figured it was worth it to avoid any confusion or problems.

The young airman was almost certainly not carrying, was likely a "good guy" and was likely being straightforward, forthright, and respectful getting out of his car to meet the officer. Unfortunately, he was not considering what the officer might be seeing and how it might be interpreted.

I don't have near enough information from the video to judge the appropriate penalty (if any) for the officer. While it isn't illegal (as far as I know) to get out of your car, it sure didn't look good in the dash cam. With 20-20 hindsight, of course the officer shouldn't have shot, and of course the young airman should either have stayed in the car and waited for instructions or been out of the car on the shoulder side with his hands clearly visible and either empty or just holding his required documents. 20-20 hindsight is easy though. I've never had 20-20 foresight and don't expect others to either.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

With the additional information, the subject line needs to be changed. The officer was dispatched on an erratic driving call with a description of the SUV. As he pulled up the SUV and truck were just coming to a stop and that's when the driver jumps out with his wallet in both hands pointing at the officer.

The officer was not dispatched on a wreck call.

Good point. One has to look at all angles. Too often body cam video or dash cam video is not enough.

Exactly as I was trying to illustrate with my earlier posts.

Lots of opinions here. He was mistakenly shot, but not maliciously shot. All the courts and investigations have determined this fact.
When you view these incidents, remember that they evolve in seconds. Time measured in the blink of an eye to make the call. Under such circumstances, will every decision be correct? Nope. And you kid yourselves if you think your judgment and reactions may have been different or better under the exact same set of circumstances. Then comes days and weeks and years of endlessly reviewing the circumstances in order to try and determine who was at fault. And the whole process of fault determination? Done mostly by people who have never been in similar situations.
So...... Bad shoot. Pay the guy. Will that erase the event? Nope. Nothing will.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Lots of opinions here. He was mistakenly shot, but not maliciously shot. All the courts and investigations have determined this fact.
When you view these incidents, remember that they evolve in seconds. Time measured in the blink of an eye to make the call. Under such circumstances, will every decision be correct? Nope. And you kid yourselves if you think your judgment and reactions may have been different or better under the exact same set of circumstances. Then comes days and weeks and years of endlessly reviewing the circumstances in order to try and determine who was at fault. And the whole process of fault determination? Done mostly by people who have never been in similar situations.
So...... Bad shoot. Pay the guy. Will that erase the event? Nope. Nothing will.

Yes, YooperSigs, I think you're right about the shoot and how it should've been handled.

But I'm having a hard time with the officer's total failure to render aid. There should be some consequence to his indifference. I can understand the officer's mistake in the shooting, but not his failure to render aid in the aftermath. That's NOT a person I want carrying a badge.

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Lots of opinions here. He was mistakenly shot, but not maliciously shot. All the courts and investigations have determined this fact.
When you view these incidents, remember that they evolve in seconds. Time measured in the blink of an eye to make the call. Under such circumstances, will every decision be correct? Nope. And you kid yourselves if you think your judgment and reactions may have been different or better under the exact same set of circumstances. Then comes days and weeks and years of endlessly reviewing the circumstances in order to try and determine who was at fault. And the whole process of fault determination? Done mostly by people who have never been in similar situations.
So...... Bad shoot. Pay the guy. Will that erase the event? Nope. Nothing will.

Yes, YooperSigs, I think you're right about the shoot and how it should've been handled.

But I'm having a hard time with the officer's total failure to render aid. There should be some consequence to his indifference. I can understand the officer's mistake in the shooting, but not his failure to render aid in the aftermath. That's NOT a person I want carrying a badge.

Well the actual officer looked to be having a panick attack but the others could have got the ball rolling. It almost appeared like the other officers were still treating him like a suspect bad guy even after it was determined that the weapon was a wallet.

Another thing to consider is that this was a 20 year old kid. Perhaps he doesn't have the insight to take in consideration what getting out of quickly might look like. Even if this isn't a bad shoot he was still shot by mistake and the judges agreed on that point. I feel like some compensation should have been given. How many other officers are cleared of wrong doing but the families still get a settlement. Maybe if he wasn't white it would have made a difference.

quote:

Another thing to consider is that this was a 20 year old kid.

That's not a consideration. Police had no idea who was climbing out of that car.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Additional information here.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...circuit/1765865.html

quote:

After careful consideration and review of a video recording of the shooting, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davidson, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Hancock's position would have feared for his life.

Yes, you get told to stay in your car when LEO approaches, and this is one reason for that. There are lots of times people approach LEOs and many of those are with ill intent to the LEO. You don't want to fit into that profile, not a little bit. And that guy surely did.

But still, he gave the guy, what, 14 femtoseconds to 'show his hands' before shooting? There is no way the victim could have heard that and done anything like complying (which, remember, would have required hand movement) without making it look worse - that is, if he had moved quickly to 'show his hands' he would have looked more threatening.

The only thing I can guess is maybe in that jurisdiction, 'careful consideration' involves a case of Scotch, strobe lights, and nitrous oxide.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Moral of the story. Either stay inside your vehicle and wait for command. Or, exit the vehicle already, and wait, before the cops arrive on scene. Don't just bolt out of your car like that.

I agree with honestlou's take.

Based on what I saw I'd say the moral of the story is there are a bunch of cops that should be in another line of work.

You should read the additional information link posted on this page of the thread. It was not an officer being dispatched to work a routine fender bender. He was dispatched on an erratic driving call with a description of the SUV - probably working on the assumption that the driver was impaired in some way.

I read the report at the link. I watched the first part of the video 10 times and not a single time did I think that it was a good shoot. From the linked report:

"Davidson's wallet was visible over the top of his clasped hands. Hancock fired two shots in rapid succession as he finished his second command to Davidson."

I don't think that Hancock was criminally negligent. He over reacted. In my inexperienced opinion he could have taken other steps until he could better assess the situation. The kid should be a millionaire and the cop should be working a desk job. For the record I'm not anti-cop. They have difficult jobs. Thankless jobs. That doesn't mean they are all cut out for the job.

ETA: I'll be one of the first to give a cop the benefit of the doubt. Just not in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs: Lots of opinions here. He was mistakenly shot, but not maliciously shot. All the courts and investigations have determined this fact...So....Bad shoot. Pay the guy. Will that erase the event? Nope. Nothing will.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:....Yes, YooperSigs, I think you're right about the shoot and how it should've been handled.

But I'm having a hard time with the officer's total failure to render aid. There should be some consequence to his indifference. I can understand the officer's mistake in the shooting, but not his failure to render aid in the aftermath. That's NOT a person I want carrying a badge.

I agree with both points.

A 20 yr old kid gets in an accident, calls it into the police. The police show up, responding to his call. Is he likely thinking "I need to freeze, maybe prostrate myself on the ground, or they will blow me away"? Or might he be thinking "I need to ID myself and describe the events"?

As I said before, to those who think it is regrettable, but too bad, put your own brother or son there on the ground under identical circumstances. Are you still of the same opinion?

quote:

I watched the first part of the video 10 times

9 times more than the officer saw it.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Another thing to consider is that this was a 20 year old kid.

That's not a consideration. Police had no idea who was climbing out of that car.

What if that was you climbing out of that car?

Well that certainly was an unfortunate series of events.

Damn, my wallet is black too.

I have thought about this before. On those rare times when I need to pay for gas with cash. I have my wallet pulled before I get to the door before realizing "what if some dumbass sees my wallet and thinks I am coming in with a gun?" I then either take the cash and re-pocket it, or open it up so it hopefully looks less like a problem.

When I was younger, if the officer/situation felt 'right', I would get out to talk. I almost seem to remember being told that it would be OK to get out (without my asking). Twice the officer asked me to get out simply so we could get to a bit safer/less noisy spot, I think. Since getting out of my teens, I have thought that police have a pretty tough row to hoe. Maybe that's why I always have had no problem getting along with them. That, and I carry the white privilege card, right?

Thankfully, the older I get, I seem to have less and less reason to interact with police in a traffic stop situation. I have not ever been stopped while carrying. Yet. I will always try to anticipate an officer's possible perceptions or even paranoia while moving slowly and deliberately, always trying to keep my hands open, and in the open. But first and foremost I try to keep myself and the situation as relaxed and natural as possible.

Let's pretend the police officer was an average Joe and he just got in an accident with this kid. Would someone getting out of their car warrant pulling a gun on them and commanding them to show their hands, then shooting them twice before the command had even been completed?

Thought so. And that's the problem I have with the police officers who the play the "our lives are in so much danger" card every single time they point or pull the trigger, yet the rest of us "citizens" walk among the "dangers" without shooting anyone.

For me, the video says it all. The officer has no business carrying a gun and the courts need to replace the people who think this was a good shoot because it was not even debatable, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Another thing to consider is that this was a 20 year old kid.

That's not a consideration. Police had no idea who was climbing out of that car.

What if that was you climbing out of that car?

It could have been the boogeyman. Police have to train for this sort of stuff you know.

A few years back I was stopped for speeding. After pulling over I undid my seatbelt raised up in the seat, pulled my wallet out of my back pocket and then removed my DL.

When the officer walked up I had one hand on the wheel and the other resting out the window with the DL in plain sight. First thing the officer said was he actually thanked me for having it out and ready. Then he asked if I had been using my seatbelt. I said yes, I just removed it to retrieve my wallet. He handed my DL back, said watch your speed and let me go.

I later found out that moving around in the car like that is not good, as the officer could take it that you are trying to hide something or maybe reaching for a weapon! Most people don't even think about these things.

The officer that stopped me was completely cool, but I'm glad I didn't get stopped by this guy... I probably would have have been shot!

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs: Lots of opinions here. He was mistakenly shot, but not maliciously shot. All the courts and investigations have determined this fact...So....Bad shoot. Pay the guy. Will that erase the event? Nope. Nothing will.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:....Yes, YooperSigs, I think you're right about the shoot and how it should've been handled.

But I'm having a hard time with the officer's total failure to render aid. There should be some consequence to his indifference. I can understand the officer's mistake in the shooting, but not his failure to render aid in the aftermath. That's NOT a person I want carrying a badge.

I agree with both points.

A 20 yr old kid gets in an accident, calls it into the police. The police show up, responding to his call. Is he likely thinking "I need to freeze, maybe prostrate myself on the ground, or they will blow me away"? Or might he be thinking "I need to ID myself and describe the events"?

As I said before, to those who think it is regrettable, but too bad, put your own brother or son there on the ground under identical circumstances. Are you still of the same opinion?

Except that's not what happened.

As posted several times in the thread, the kid did not call in an accident - the thread title is completely wrong and misleading.

Another driver on the interstate called in an erratic driving report on the kid's SUV. As the officer rolled up the truck and SUV were just pulling off the road. The officer was expecting either an impaired driver or a road rager in the SUV. When the kid jumps out with both hands on the wallet pointing it at the officer, the officer was expecting the worst.

So again - thread title is wrong and misleading - that is not what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Another thing to consider is that this was a 20 year old kid.

That's not a consideration. Police had no idea who was climbing out of that car.

What if that was you climbing out of that car?

It could have been the boogeyman. Police have to train for this sort of stuff you know.

But that doesn't answer my question. If that was you in that car, would you be of the same opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

I watched the first part of the video 10 times

9 times more than the officer saw it.

And 10 times more than the kid getting out of his car with his wallet following an accident. What are probably the the two things you see most often at the scene of a minor accident? Cell phones and wallets.

It sucks, no doubt. But that would not have been me because I was taught when I learned to drive what to do when getting pulled over or interacting with police. I don't think anyone here thinks the officer went on that call with the intention of shooting someone. Very unfortunate series of events. No doubt.

Oh, and I'll keep posting it so maybe people will see it eventually:

Thread title is completely wrong and misleading - another driver called in an erratic driving report on the SUV - the officer was expecting an impaired driver or a road rager.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:....As posted several times in the thread, the kid did not call in an accident - the thread title is completely wrong and misleading.

Another driver on the interstate called in an erratic driving report on the kid's SUV. As the officer rolled up the truck and SUV were just pulling off the road. The officer was expecting either an impaired driver or a road rager in the SUV. When the kid jumps out with both hands on the wallet pointing it at the officer, the officer was expecting the worst.

So again - thread title is wrong and misleading - that is not what happened.

Thank you for the clarification. If I were the driver in that situation and a police car pulled up, I would not expect the police to be anticipating a gunfight.

But I still have the same question, that is your son on the ground.