quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

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. But I still have the same question.

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.

As I was taught - you never know what the officer saw or why he is pulling over - ALWAYS stay in the vehicle with windows down and hands on top of steering wheel and follow the officers instructions. Always repeat the instructions and move slowly explaining what you are doing. I've never gone wrong following these instructions.



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.

Bama Jeepster thats going overboard honestly.

The kid clearly erred....he should have been wearing a blaze orange safety vest, holding road flares and doing jumping jacks whilst screaming "I am not a threat"

People in accidents are jittery and freaked out. They aren't always predictably calm and quiet, nor are they always in their vehicle. You would think the officer might take that into consideration before he starts shooting motorists.

Given the nearly instantaneous amount of time between the second command "show me your hands" and the officer shooting, I don't see how Davidson could have complied quickly enough to avoid being shot.

quote:

Originally posted by Echtermetzger:...People in accidents are jittery and freaked out. They aren't always predictably calm and quiet, nor are they always in their vehicle. You would think the officer might take that into consideration before he starts shooting motorists.

Given the nearly instantaneous amount of time between the second command "show me your hands" and the officer shooting, I don't see how Davidson could have complied quickly enough to avoid being shot.

You make sense.

I see two issues. The shooting was regrettable, but was it culpable? The courts have said no. Does the city have some liability for the outcome. I would say absolutely yes.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:...As I was taught - you never know what the officer saw or why he is pulling over - ALWAYS stay in the vehicle with windows down and hands on top of steering wheel and follow the officers instructions. Always repeat the instructions and move slowly explaining what you are doing. I've never gone wrong following these instructions.

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.

I have been driving for close to 50 years, lived in four different states, was never once taught such explicit conduct when driving. I have been pulled over, or "encountered" a policeman more than a dozen times -- fender bender, traffic ticket, warning, or as a witness, been in the car, out of the car, already on the sidewalk, etc. Never once was I thinking to play Caspar Milquetoast.

But it seems no one has answered my question, if that is your son on the ground, do you hold the same opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by Echtermetzger:
People in accidents are jittery and freaked out. They aren't always predictably calm and quiet, nor are they always in their vehicle. You would think the officer might take that into consideration before he starts shooting motorists.

Given the nearly instantaneous amount of time between the second command "show me your hands" and the officer shooting, I don't see how Davidson could have complied quickly enough to avoid being shot.

The officer didn't know there had been an accident.

As stated numerous times, the officer was dispatched on an erratic driving call and the SUV matched the description. The officer pulled up as the 18 wheeler and SUV were pulling over. The SUV was not sitting still waiting for the officer to arrive.

The officer was expecting an impaired driver or a road rager to be driving the SUV.



<The 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 Scoutmaster:
But it seems no one has answered my question, if that is your son on the ground, do you hold the same opinion?

If the officer was your son would you want him indicted for murder given the call he was on?

Personally I would hate for my son to have been involved in this at all. Really sucks for all involved, but I hope he would have remembered what I taught him and not jumped out of his vehicle to confront a police officer.

<The 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 RAMIUS:

www.nydailynews.com

lmao when you provide a link it's supposed too help your side of things, not hurt it.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
But it seems no one has answered my question, if that is your son on the ground, do you hold the same opinion?

If the officer was your son would you want him indicted for murder given the call he was on?

Personally I would hate for my son to have been involved in this at all. Really sucks for all involved, but I hope he would have remembered what I taught him and not jumped out of his vehicle to confront a police officer....

If the officer was my son, I would hold the same opinion -- that the officer jumped the gun, unfortunate but understandable under the circumstances, given the environment in which LEO's work. But I would also fully believe the city has some financial obligation for damage done. A person's life was significantly and permanently damaged due to an unintentional marginal infraction of procedure.

Yes you would hope your son would remember such training, even after an accident. But if he didn't, if he was under stress, if he was a bit naive or presumptuous that the officer was there to help, is the outcome still acceptable to you? (And I don't see the driver's actions as "confronting" an officer).

quote:

given the environment in which LEO's work

That's the very same environment the rest of us live and work in every day. I don't know about you, but I'm never overly concerned when I head out the door in the morning. If I can face the world unafraid, so can others.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
But it seems no one has answered my question, if that is your son on the ground, do you hold the same opinion?

If the officer was your son would you want him indicted for murder given the call he was on?

Personally I would hate for my son to have been involved in this at all. Really sucks for all involved, but I hope he would have remembered what I taught him and not jumped out of his vehicle to confront a police officer.

<The 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.>

You keep mentioning the erratic driving report. The driver was in an accident and had NO CLUE there was a call regarding him. He didn't know he was potentially a suspect in a crime. What do you do when there's an accident. You get out you WALLET to exchange information. I have only been in a couple before. Never once did both parties stay in their vehicles and await instructions from officers.

Usually both drivers get out walk around access the damage to the vehicles. Get out wallets, maybe cellphones to take pictures.

The driver had no idea that he was being pulled over, the cop had no idea the people in the vehicles thought he was there for a routine accident.

This lessens the harshness of what I said on first page of thread. Even with the confusion from the purpose of the cops presence there from all parties involved. Cops should not have a shoot first mentality on even an impaired driver accident. He should have given more than one second to issue a command and have the driver respond. He shot the kid faster than I could comprehend the command being given, let alone comply with it. He did immediately raise his hands, he was shot before he could complete raising them.

In the end I think no crime was committed by the officer. However he should lose his job and the jurisdiction should pay for the guys lifetime required care from being shot as well as some other compensation for pain and suffering. If Mike Brown's family gets paid after he commits robbery and attacks and officer, this guy should too. I don't understand the difference at all. One was a criminal activity attacking an officer, the second was an officer thinking the guy may be attacking him. I can guarantee if that airman was black he'd have a large check and we would have all known his name three years ago. Eric Holder and Obama would have loved the chance to shit on cops and say how racist America is.

Not illegal shoot, but not justified in my mind. I hope he goes to SCOTUS and does get paid. It doesn't look like he will by the law and previous rulings, but he deserves it if life were fair.

Skins, you make a lot of sense.

That kid did NOTHING wrong. I don't care that I've never been a cop and "don't know what it is to wear a badge," or that "it could have been anybody stepping out of that truck." Cop shot him twice before he could barely move. As he was struggling on the ground after getting shot, the kid was STILL trying to show his hands.

I'm as pro cop as the next guy, but that video made me sick to my stomach.

He was cooperative and compliant. That cop should be lucky to be able to work a desk for the rest of his career. Maybe he wasn't *criminally* at fault, but the cop is still responsible for ruining that kid's life. And I refuse to believe that this should just be notched up to an "oops, bad luck" dismissal.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
That kid did NOTHING wrong.
...Cop shot him twice before he could barely move.
...He was cooperative and compliant.

That is certainly one way of looking at it, however consider this:

1. When exiting a vehicle, most people, especially when struggling with the door/car angle/slope of ground, use both hands on the door...this would have heightened tension in the officer
2. The driver was reaching back toward his hip area as he was coming through the door....that is when the officer started shouting commands
3. The officer did not shoot when the driver brought his right hand around with something black in it...he continued to shout commands
4. The driver brought his hands together, having now completely exited his vehicle, and started extending his arms toward the officer...that was when the shots are fired

The flaw in the officer's technique is he was fixated (self-limited by) on his training that "hands kill" and issuing the command "show me your hands". A better choice in verbal command might have been "Stop" or "Freeze"

quote:

And I refuse to believe that this should just be notched up to an "oops, bad luck" dismissal.

When a case/incident has been review by multiple judges and they issue the attached opinion, I think it goes beyond "oops"...but we'll never know as we aren't given that additional information

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
That kid did NOTHING wrong.
...Cop shot him twice before he could barely move.
...He was cooperative and compliant.

That is certainly one way of looking at it, however consider this:

1. When exiting a vehicle, most people, especially when struggling with the door/car angle/slope of ground, use both hands on the door...this would have heightened tension in the officer
2. The driver was reaching back toward his hip area as he was coming through the door....that is when the officer started shouting commands
3. The officer did not shoot when the driver brought his right hand around with something black in it...he continued to shout commands
4. The driver brought his hands together, having now completely exited his vehicle, and started extending his arms toward the officer...that was when the shots are fired

The flaw in the officer's technique is he was fixated (self-limited by) on his training that "hands kill" and issuing the command "show me your hands". A better choice in verbal command might have been "Stop" or "Freeze"

quote:

And I refuse to believe that this should just be notched up to an "oops, bad luck" dismissal.

When a case/incident has been review by multiple judges and they issue the attached opinion, I think it goes beyond "oops"...but we'll never know as we aren't given that additional information

You're reaching. If the cop can process the situation that quickly, he wouldn't need to shoot first and ask questions later. The cop overreacted, ruined this young man's life and got away with it.

Really interesting discussion here. I side with the folks who think the cop overreacted. The officer isn't clearing rooms in Mosel, why is he so jumpy around the public?

I'm curious if the courts would have judged this a reasonable use of force if the shooter had been a CCW instead of a police officer. My gut says no. Cops should be held to a higher standard than "untrained" citizens reagarding use of force but apparently they aren't.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Really interesting discussion here. I side with the folks who think the cop overreacted. The officer isn't clearing rooms in Mosel, why is he so jumpy around the public?

I'm curious if the courts would have judged this a reasonable use of force if the shooter had been a CCW instead of a police officer. My gut says no. Cops should be held to a higher standard than "untrained" citizens reagarding use of force but apparently they aren't.

No person with a CCW is going to be dispatched to stop an erratic driver on the interstate. The cop pulled up just as they were pulling off the road - you can see the brake lights come on as the SUV driver is putting his vehicle in park. The cop is thinking that the SUV driver is either impaired or a road rager who just caused a conflict with an 18 wheeler. The officer never knew that there was an accident involved.

Unfortunately the OP is not changing the title of the thread and a lot of people are thinking the original scenario is still what happened (that the SUV driver self reported a fender bender and has been sitting patiently waiting for an officer to arrive and the officer pulls up hot for no reason). If the original scenario were true I very seriously doubt the court would have ruled the way it did. The major reason they cite for the ruling is based on the reason the officer was dispatched and the fact that he rolls up thinking the SUV driver is impaired or a road rager who just caused a conflict with an 18 wheeler. When the driver immediately jumps out, reaches behind him and brings both hands together in front of him the officer reasonably is expecting the worst due to the nature of the call he has been dispatched on.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

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?

I am on your side and my comment was in jest.

I think it's ridiculous to come out guns blazing like that cop did. In most urban areas if cops acted like this they would shoot someone every day.

To digress a little.... Through and through shot to the lower abdomen.... In looking at the expanding blood stain on his jeans....it surprises me that neither the aorta, vena cava, iliac arteries or spine were hit. Probably broke the pelvis and ruptured bladder ??

On second thought.....maybe the reason that he now has a permanent colostomy is that the lower spine was hit ( sacral nerves) and he is now permanently incontinent.

If I were that policeman....I think that I would find it very hard to continue in that profession. JMO....mike

quote:

If the officer was my son, I would hold the same opinion

Doubtful