He was under arrest. He just hadn't been subdued yet.
Justified or not, it was a good shot. One shot, one thug down and bleeding out. Anyone know if she has a legal defense fund? I'll donate.
He was under arrest. He just hadn't been subdued yet.
Justified or not, it was a good shot. One shot, one thug down and bleeding out. Anyone know if she has a legal defense fund? I'll donate.
I'm with you. She didn't go to work that day with the intention of killing someone. This turd put her in that position. She had no criminal intent, which is a necessary element of a crime under the Common Law. At worst her's was a mistake in judgement and is a departmental administrative matter which can be corrected with remedial training.
Hillary's killed more than her.
This is exactly why her decision to pursue him to the vehicle was tactically unsound. There was another logical decision. When managing an unknown contact who is refusing to obey a lawful order, your best bet is to buy time. The correct application of the OODA loop would be to create space and gain cover, which also buys time to add additional reinforcements, shore up your tactical position, possibly add firepower in the form of a long gun, etc.
Officers routinely get tunnel vision on the detention, when in many cases that increases the risk to the officer and suspect. If this guy got in his truck and drove off, what crimes has he committed? Blocking the orderly flow of traffic by parking in the middle of the road? Interference with an officer in the performance of their duties? If so, are either of those felonies? Even if he drove off, she'd still have to develop probable cause for a moving violation. I think in this case a review of Title 21 would be instructive (Title 47 for motor vehicle laws).
http://www.oklegislature.gov/osStatuesTitle.html
Once you open it, you can hit "Ctrl+F" and search for anything. While looking these things up, you might want to peruse § 21-732. IMO, no officer wants to kill a man for a misdemeanor or less (not that they actually want to kill felons in most cases either), particularly where there is no victim. That's what happened here and it IS a tragedy. Is he complicit in his own death? Yes but not to a preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO, YMMV
I here what you are saying but I would hate to set a precedent that would require an officer to run and I fear that's what it would do. Certainly in some situations it is a more prudent option but we both know it would snowball by the time it was put into practice. I ran across this the other day and it's far more egregious if you can believe it. It involves armed suspects!
http://www.policemag.com/blog/patro...ssion-tells-officers-to-run-away-or-else.aspx
Interesting possibility. http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
https://fundly.com/i-stand-with-betty-shelby#supporters
You can make donation to help Betty Shelby with her defense.
You can make donation to help Betty Shelby with her defense.
Having been on scene for a number of officer involved shootings (and many more situations where force was deployed at varying levels) this looks like a borderline case to me. The suspect was clearly acting in irrational and unpredictable ways, and the discovery of PCP in his vehicle points strongly to that as the agent involved. People on angel dust are frequently violent and given to major outbursts where baton strikes and other actions make little to no impression. I have seen up to six officers swarm a dust-crazed suspect and still have real trouble getting him cuffed and controlled.
Something caused the female officer to fire one shot and the male officer beside her to trigger his taser at virtually the same moment. That points very strongly to an action the suspect took when shielded from the camera as he was beside his driver's door. The officer said he was reaching into the truck window (which others claim was closed) so I suppose we will have to await the crime scene photos at trial that will settle that point. If it was open there is real and reasonable grounds to support the decision to shoot, as he could easily have been reaching for a weapon.
The bottom line is that a number of elements (irrational behavior, repeated refusals to stop, repeated hand gestures to the pockets, probable drug intoxication and to be frank the size and bulk of the suspect in comparison to the female officer) were present that would support a decision to deploy force. Was it the right decision? I guess the jury will decide. The one thing we know for sure is that if the suspect had simply obeyed the officer's initial commands to assume a non-threatening posture and be checked for weapons, then answered questions about why he had abandoned his vehicle on the centerline of a busy street, he would still be walking around today and there would be no controversy. It was the suspect and not the officer whose actions ultimately led to a fatal confrontation.
Something caused the female officer to fire one shot and the male officer beside her to trigger his taser at virtually the same moment. That points very strongly to an action the suspect took when shielded from the camera as he was beside his driver's door. The officer said he was reaching into the truck window (which others claim was closed) so I suppose we will have to await the crime scene photos at trial that will settle that point. If it was open there is real and reasonable grounds to support the decision to shoot, as he could easily have been reaching for a weapon.
The bottom line is that a number of elements (irrational behavior, repeated refusals to stop, repeated hand gestures to the pockets, probable drug intoxication and to be frank the size and bulk of the suspect in comparison to the female officer) were present that would support a decision to deploy force. Was it the right decision? I guess the jury will decide. The one thing we know for sure is that if the suspect had simply obeyed the officer's initial commands to assume a non-threatening posture and be checked for weapons, then answered questions about why he had abandoned his vehicle on the centerline of a busy street, he would still be walking around today and there would be no controversy. It was the suspect and not the officer whose actions ultimately led to a fatal confrontation.
Now this is the most cogent and correct summation of the shooting that I have seen anywhere. Two things are certain to me................1) She should not have allowed him to walk back to his vehicle. With him ignoring repeated orders to stop, she should have tased him before he made it back to his SUV.
2) He was 100% complicit in his death. That officer did not go to work that day with the intent to kill someone. I am pretty sure that would be the LAST thing she would want to happen that day.
Similar threads
