Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Herzlos wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Seems fairly obvious that when a police force treats the populace under its authority as a threat to be contained it will respond as if it were under occupation.

I think that's the jist of it. We've got to a chicken and egg situation where civilians are terrified of vops and cops are terrified of civilians. Both perfectly valid. Unfortunately I think it's all down to your crazy gun laws. Cops have to assume that anyone they stop is armed, because anyone they stop could be armed. We don't really have that that situation anywhere else beyond the middle east. In Europe/Canada, cops don't assume everyone is armed because they aren't. The biggest risk is knives so they have stab proof vests, batons and pepper spray, as well as lots of situation handling and deescalation training. UK cops treat everyone as friendly until proven otherwise, as you'll see by all the silly clips of them doing karaoke and the likes. Only videos of US cops i see are violent.

Hrm, I don't think it's all guns or a fear of people being armed. There are also very good reasons why the public (*note*: not "civilians", cops are civilians too and that's something sometimes forgotten) has very little reason to like the police based on the fundamental nature of the US legal system and the role of the police in it. Fundamentally, the police are not there to protect and serve, they have no legal obligation to actually protect anybody, they are there to enforce the law however their superiors deem fit (which, as everyone knows, is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving). Police are allowed to lie to people and use that as a fundamental cornerstone of their profession in obtaining confessions and investigating crimes, which is a valuable tool in that profession but also means that people need to be exceedingly wary of any interaction they have with the police. Talking with the police is a hazardous affair and something almost all lawyers (and candidly, some police officers too) will advise not talking to the police under any circumstances even in friendly encounters (remember, anything you say can and will be used against you, never *for* you), and in many communities the only time they see the police is when they're there to take someone away or issue fines/tickets.

When often even innocent people's reaction to police is to actively avoid them for the above reasons, that's going to create trust issues. There are just fundamental facets with the nature of policing in the US that makes the public uncomfortable about the police, and that's going to complicate people's reactions and raise the potential for distrust and violence whether they have access to weapons or not.

I was very clear that we were dropping the general "how to deal with the gun problem" line of discussion. This post was edited because that was not followed. Make sure the thread doesn't pursue it further.

What's absurd is the insistence to turn this thread into another destined to be locked thread on gun ownership in the US. Gun ownership is not relevant to the police shooting this thread is supposed to be discussing so let's not digress into that tangent.

Color me amazed. Having a gun in the house increases risk of a gun in the house being involved in an accident or intentional gun related injury or death.

I'm just fething flabbergasted that not having a gun in the house would reduce the risk of a gun in the house harming someone.

I bet folks who don't own a car are at a reduced risk of being in a car wreck involving a car they own as well.

I know you guys were just responding, but remember that I was pretty clear we don't need to discuss the general gun control topic here. Just hit the mod alert if you see it happen again, thanks

I've worked with and for law enforcement. In my opinion what needs to change is attitude. It seems most cops treat everyone as a threat. Regardless of your history. I've known several cops who wouldn't even be friends with anyone except another cop.

Yup. Law enforcements attitude towards the people they serve is really what needs to change.

yellowfever wrote:
I've worked with and for law enforcement. In my opinion what needs to change is attitude. It seems most cops treat everyone as a threat. Regardless of your history. I've known several cops who wouldn't even be friends with anyone except another cop.

Yup. Law enforcements attitude towards the people they serve is really what needs to change.

That seems to be the jist of what people here think the problem is.
Shooting to kill is one thing, but when there is a will to do it (or at least, having no reason not to), this will keep getting worse.
"To Protect and Serve" has no association with shooting too soon, or when a shot should not even be fired at all.

Do the police forces have a problem with staffing levels? Can people get sacked for having the wrong attitude, and not harm shift pattern, for instance?
How likely is it that a cull of the trigger-happy few can be chucked out to east the problem?

yellowfever wrote:
I've worked with and for law enforcement. In my opinion what needs to change is attitude. It seems most cops treat everyone as a threat. Regardless of your history. I've known several cops who wouldn't even be friends with anyone except another cop.

Yup. Law enforcements attitude towards the people they serve is really what needs to change.

There are thousands of LEAs in the US, from county to small municipalities and so on. I very strongly suspect your sample is not going to be good enough to give such broad brush statements any real validity.

Looks like there will be plenty of video footage to help discern what happened.

http://ktla.com/2016/08/23/n-c-trooper-shoots-kills-speech-impaired-deaf-man-following-chase-family-seeks-answers/

The trooper was placed on administrative leave after the shooting as is usual for any trooper involved in a shooting, Baker said.

Authorities are gathering dashboard-camera and body-camera video relating to the incident from the highway patrol and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, which sent officers to the scene after the shooting, said Audria Bridges, a special agent with North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation.

“Because at least 20 highway patrol officers responded, it is taking some time to get all videos related to (the) incident together,” said Bridges,
whose agency is investigating the shooting.

The deaf man's car was damaged during the 7 mile chase, pictures show the front bumper damaged and the left front tire gone leaving the car resting on the metal rim.



Eyewitness says the state trooper's car was also damaged and smoking.

“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article96565352.html#storylink=cpy


http://www.wsoctv.com/426029600

Officials said that around 6:15 p.m., the trooper tried to pull over a Volvo that was speeding on the interstate near mile marker 30, but the 29-year-old driver would not stop.



The man then led authorities on a brief pursuit, exiting onto Rocky River Road and turning onto Seven Oaks Drive.

Harris must have seen the blue lights behind him as two troopers followed him for 6 miles on I-485, authorities said.

When they reached the off ramp at Rocky River Road, the SBI said troopers deliberately bumped his car trying to get him to stop, but Harris kept going.

The Highway Patrol said a confrontation followed, and that was when Trooper Jermaine Saunders fired the fatal shot.

Mario wrote:
I was very clear that we were dropping the general "how to deal with the gun problem" line of discussion. Don't pursue it further.

If this was in directed at me, my post was about "why there's distrust of police regardless of other factors" not "what to do about the gun problem". If we're going to treat any passing mention of firearms as a "gun problem discussion" then we're going to have a hard time discussing anything on this subject.

That was me removing his whole post for not following my earlier instruction. Could have probably been clearer about that...my bad. Your post was fine, I'll clear it up

Ah ok, my apologies to all then, I shouldn't be posting before 7am

Sorry, my fault for getting carried away from the topic.

I've been to several states and perception was basically the same. Of course I can't and don't speak for everyone. But looking into shows I'm far from the only one thinking it.

Herzlos wrote:
Only videos of US cops i see are violent.

That's because the media likes to heighten the sense of distrust between civilians and cops instead of diffusing them. I see plenty of videos of US cops acting friendly/helpful/silly/funny, but it's not from mainstream media sources. When I lived in the US I saw nothing but cops acting friendly and helpful. Maybe it's because I was also friendly to them, though mostly I found Americans to be friendly in general.

I mean look at the title of this thread "North Carolina police shoot deaf man trying to sign at them during traffic stop", click baity and inflammatory, it makes it sound like NC Police shoot deaf people during traffic stops, you could instead say "7 mile police chase ends in deaf man being shot by an officer" which adds the context and the takes the emphasis away from "THE POLICE SHOOT PEOPLE!!11!!one!!!!" to "a person was shot by an officer". But then you'd actually have an informative title and we all know people don't click on informative titles, they need the controversial click baity ones.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Only videos of US cops i see are violent.

That's because the media likes to heighten the sense of distrust between civilians and cops instead of diffusing them. I see plenty of videos of US cops acting friendly/helpful/silly/funny, but it's not from mainstream media sources. When I lived in the US I saw nothing but cops acting friendly and helpful. Maybe it's because I was also friendly to them, though mostly I found Americans to be friendly in general.

I mean look at the title of this thread "North Carolina police shoot deaf man trying to sign at them during traffic stop", click baity and inflammatory, it makes it sound like NC Police shoot blind people during traffic stops, you could instead say "7 mile police chase ends in blind man being shot by an officer" which adds the context and the takes the emphasis away from "THE POLICE SHOOT PEOPLE!!11!!one!!!!" to "a person was shot by an officer". But then you'd actually have an informative title and we all know people don't click on informative titles, they need the controversial click baity ones.

Very true. The media also often avoids supplying proper context. We have 1.1 million LEOs in the US that are collectively policing a populace of about 325 million people. There are literally millions of interactions between police and people every day. Only a small fraction of those interactions are violent and only a small fraction of those involve the LEO shooting somebody fatally or otherwise. Every officer involved shooting results in an investigation of the circumstances and the validity of the justification of the use of force. Every use of force by the police should be examined, we have a civic duty to be vigilant over our govt agencies and their use of the powers we grant them. There are certainly problems with polo on currently especially in regards to training practices and public perceptions. However, given the low number of shooting deaths by police it's hard to justify calling police shootings any kind of national crisis. It's even harder to declare police racist or bigoted on a national scale when all of the egregious incidents happen with different officers in different departments in different locales under the oversight of different elected officials. It's not logical to tie different incidents together just because they involve LEOs.

Prestor Jon wrote:
However, given the low number of shooting deaths by police it's hard to justify calling police shootings any kind of national crisis. It's even harder to declare police racist or bigoted on a national scale when all of the egregious incidents happen with different officers in different departments in different locales under the oversight of different elected officials. It's not logical to tie different incidents together just because they involve LEOs.

Then again even factored by population sizes US polices are shooting LOT more than polices in Europe. In Finland there's was 5 persons shot in 2004-2014. Factored in population size that would be around 230 people.

" Updated estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics released in 2015 estimate the number to be around 930 per year, or 1240 if assuming that nonreporting local agencies kill people at the same rate as reporting agencies"

If rate was same as in Finland it would be more like 23 people per year...

But on more positive note they also do stuff like this:

http://www.bdtonline.com/news/police-headquarters-becomes-baby-safe-haven/article_bab28500-69a2-11e6-9e60-9b9cf4781fc7.html

That's exemplary action by police!

tneva82 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
However, given the low number of shooting deaths by police it's hard to justify calling police shootings any kind of national crisis. It's even harder to declare police racist or bigoted on a national scale when all of the egregious incidents happen with different officers in different departments in different locales under the oversight of different elected officials. It's not logical to tie different incidents together just because they involve LEOs.

Then again even factored by population sizes US polices are shooting LOT more than polices in Europe. In Finland there's was 5 persons shot in 2004-2014. Factored in population size that would be around 230 people.

" Updated estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics released in 2015 estimate the number to be around 930 per year, or 1240 if assuming that nonreporting local agencies kill people at the same rate as reporting agencies"

If rate was same as in Finland it would be more like 23 people per year...

But on more positive note they also do stuff like this:

http://www.bdtonline.com/news/police-headquarters-becomes-baby-safe-haven/article_bab28500-69a2-11e6-9e60-9b9cf4781fc7.html

That's exemplary action by police!

I know the mods have tabooed talking about gun control in this thread, but any comparison of gun deaths by police in the US vs other countries does need to take in to account firstly the number of guns in populace has and the number of gun related deaths inflicted by civilians. There is no western country that comes close to the US in that regard.

According to wikipedia, Finland pulls in less than 1/10th the number of gun related homicides as the US inflicted by the civilian population. Whether you agree with strict gun control or believe in the right to bear arms, the more gun violence you have among the community, the more police are going to respond with gun violence. Likewise, the more police respond with gun violence, the more often mistakes will be made like a person who didn't pull over and then stepped out of their vehicle when they finally did accidentally getting shot. Is it good that it happened? Of course not, it's terrible and should be investigated, but I also don't think the first conclusion we should jump to is "it's a systemic problem with police! police are evil! cops in other countries don't go around shooting people! They must be badly trained! They must have a vendetta against blacks/deaf/disabled people!" without first looking at the context within US cops have to operate compared to other western countries.

I'm also a big believer in "innocent until proven guilty" and yes, that even includes cops! The media loves dragging people over the coals to up their views with no regard for things like evidence and how it might destroy the lives of the people they are targeting.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Looks like there will be plenty of video footage to help discern what happened.

http://ktla.com/2016/08/23/n-c-trooper-shoots-kills-speech-impaired-deaf-man-following-chase-family-seeks-answers/

The trooper was placed on administrative leave after the shooting as is usual for any trooper involved in a shooting, Baker said.

Authorities are gathering dashboard-camera and body-camera video relating to the incident from the highway patrol and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, which sent officers to the scene after the shooting, said Audria Bridges, a special agent with North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation.

“Because at least 20 highway patrol officers responded, it is taking some time to get all videos related to (the) incident together,” said Bridges,
whose agency is investigating the shooting.

The deaf man's car was damaged during the 7 mile chase, pictures show the front bumper damaged and the left front tire gone leaving the car resting on the metal rim.



Eyewitness says the state trooper's car was also damaged and smoking.

“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article96565352.html#storylink=cpy


http://www.wsoctv.com/426029600

Officials said that around 6:15 p.m., the trooper tried to pull over a Volvo that was speeding on the interstate near mile marker 30, but the 29-year-old driver would not stop.



The man then led authorities on a brief pursuit, exiting onto Rocky River Road and turning onto Seven Oaks Drive.

Harris must have seen the blue lights behind him as two troopers followed him for 6 miles on I-485, authorities said.

When they reached the off ramp at Rocky River Road, the SBI said troopers deliberately bumped his car trying to get him to stop, but Harris kept going.

The Highway Patrol said a confrontation followed, and that was when Trooper Jermaine Saunders fired the fatal shot.

This right here tells me everything I need to know to make an educated guess, based on my own experience.


1-High speed chase. That suspect in question KNEW he was being chased and deliberately continued to refuse to stop. That's a serious thing in most U.S. jurisdictions and FELONY FAILURE TO STOP. This puts the lives of the public and pursuing officers in jeopardy.

2-Chase ends, perp jumps out of the car. When we engaged in pursuits, and the pursuit itself ended, it was SOP for us to exit out vehicles WITH WEAPONS DRAWN. Which is what this Trooper, in all likelyhood, did. When HP joined us in chases, that's what they did when we went to take control of the suspect. That's what we were trained to do to gain quick control of a suspect/situation, and react faster if they decide to fight. I don't care if the guy was a deaf-mute. If he was smart enough to drive a car, and had prior dealings with police, he sure as hell knew what a Trooper pointing his duty weapon at him meant. It means don't move unless he instructs you to, and keep your goddamned hands where he can see them. Getting out of the car, I'm sure he didn't miss a cop pointing his sidearm at him. The perp knew what the drill was.

3-If the guy got out of the car after a chase of this kind, it means one of two things: He's going to bolt or he's going to engage the officer(s). And the boys and girls over at HP are not in the habit of shooting suspects who do a runner, unless the "Fleeing Felon Rule" applies to a given situation.

4-Odds are the guy did one of two things: Appeared to go for a weapon, and/or advanced toward the Trooper without instructions. Both are EQUALLY DANGEROUS in a felony pursuit and stop. If one or both are the case, then deadly force on the Trooper's part was both WITHIN SOP and APPROPRIATE for the situation. It doesn't matter if the guy was armed or not. If he can get close, your life is in danger. Just ask one of my former brother officers a few years ago that was disarmed, and nearly killed with his own duty weapon, after a guy wanted on a felony drug warrant rammed his patrol car, jumped out, and ran toward him in a grocery store parking lot. The punk overpowered him, and disarmed him of his SIG P229. Luckily, he popped the mag out of the gun when he felt like he was going to lose control of the weapon, and (by some miracle) the suspect missed when he fired the chambered round at his head, at close range. Cops being killed by their own duty weapons has been happening since the first police agency was established in the United States. Instances have been reduced due to better training over the last thirty years, but it still happens.

5-People in this thread are making assumptions about training in this circumstance without knowing what the hell they are talking about. The North Carolina Highway Patrol gets better training than local and County agencies. In fact, they have strict guidelines about potential recruits, and they have to attend the Highway Patrol Academy. And the Academy isn't easy to pass if you're not on top of your game. Town cops and "county mounties" are also trained according North Carolina Justice Academy guidelines and have to go through eight weeks of BLET. And if you don't meet all of the guidelines AND pass the exam, you don't get certified. Period. Training isn't always the issue.


That's my take based on the information provided so far. When (or if) we get more details, my personal view on the incident will change. Problem is, when you have an investigation of a shooting incident in police agencies, full details are usually not provided until all is said and done.

Wait a second... there is more evidence of things happening? But I thought this was a clear cut case of a cop just murdering someone for no reason.

I can't believe that having waited, new facts arose that could have an impact on how the event is viewed. This is just blowing my mind.

Yes. Who would have imagined that someone could smear the deceased, make them look very bad, insinuate they deserved what they got while actually proving nothing, and then proceed to demand everyone who disagrees that the dead person had it coming was wrong. Absolutely mind blowing. That's never ever happened before. Clearly, the annoyance of having to chase him was great justification. We'll just throwing in some double speak like "confrontation," let some innuendo's stick and be done with the matter. Clearly anyone afraid of the police is just paranoid and dumb.

Until evidence is presented that there really was a confrontation, and that it involved more than some harsh hand work on the part of the deceased, construing that he had it coming and we should all just walk away and not be bothered by this event is completely unconvincing.

As a side note, the brother of the deceased seems like a bit of tool.

 djones520 wrote:
Wait a second... there is more evidence of things happening? But I thought this was a clear cut case of a cop just murdering someone for no reason.

I can't believe that having waited, new facts arose that could have an impact on how the event is viewed. This is just blowing my mind.

There's still been no evidence police was in life danger. Was the guy even armed? In Finland unless the guy was armed police would have been EXTREMELY unlikely to shoot him. Why? Police here are far less trigger happy as evidenced by the fact that even factored population size US shoots *30* times as many in a year as Finnish police.

Long chase ain't justification for shooting people down.

LordofHats wrote:Until evidence is presented that there really was a confrontation, and that it involved more than some harsh hand work on the part of the deceased, construing that he had it coming

And who, pray tell, has construed that he had it coming?

We're simply saying that maybe there were circumstances that lead to the deaf person being shot that may not place the blame solely at the feet of the cops. Maybe, maybe not, we are just asking that evidence is supplied before judging either the guy shot OR the cop.

djones sarcastically pointed out that you should wait for the evidence of the situation to come out before deciding how to view it.

oldraven gave an educated guess of what he thought likely happened, since when is trying to reconstruct what happened tantamount to saying someone deserved it?

I pointed out that the media likes to be inflammatory, maybe there were circumstances, cops in the US can't be compared to other western countries for obvious reasons and people are innocent until proven guilty even if they happen to be wearing a badge.

People aren't saying the guy deserved to be shot.... we are saying maybe the cop also doesn't deserved to have his name dragged through the mud by idiots who are going to judge and smear without even knowing the circumstances. The first post in this thread has an inflammatory title and insinuated that the Police killed an innocent person for doing nothing dangerous, maybe he should have waited for the facts before crucifying the policeman.

tneva82 wrote:There's still been no evidence police was in life danger. Was the guy even armed? In Finland unless the guy was armed police would have been EXTREMELY unlikely to shoot him. Why? Police here are far less trigger happy as evidenced by the fact that even factored population size US shoots *30* times as many in a year as Finnish police.

Read my above post regarding comparisons to Finland. Civilians in the USA are far more likely to have a gun and far more likely to use a gun violently, so guess what, so are the cops

It's even taught when you get your drivers license that when you get pulled over, you stay in the car with your hands on the wheel so the cop can be confident you aren't dangerous. It was on the fething drivers permit test (at least it was in PA) so it should be common knowledge in the US.

Long chase ain't justification for shooting people down.

And no one is bloody saying that, get yerself some reading comprehension.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
]And who, pray tell, has construed that he had it coming?

The usual suspects who've done the same in every thread about similar events, bending over backwards to deny all possibility that the shooting wasn't justified, and building up series of events to paint the deceased as a reckless individual who made foolish decisions (i.e. had it coming).

djones sarcastically pointed out that you should wait for the evidence of the situation to come out before deciding how to view it.

Everyone picked sides on this issue ages ago, and we shouldn't delude ourselves or each other into thinking we only form opinions after whatever vague and arbitrary amount of information is made available. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to lay out in a list who would argue what beforehand, because it's always the same people with the same talking points in every thread.

In the end, only one piece of information actually matters; the nature of the "confrontation" the predicated the use of lethal force. As far as this instance goes, its the only one that will change anyone's minds and knowing our luck it's gonna end up being a total toss up.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
]And who, pray tell, has construed that he had it coming?

The usual suspects who've done the same in every thread about similar events, bending over backwards to deny all possibility that the shooting wasn't justified, and building up series of events to paint the deceased as a reckless individual who made foolish decisions (i.e. had it coming).

djones sarcastically pointed out that you should wait for the evidence of the situation to come out before deciding how to view it.

Everyone picked sides on this issue ages ago, and we shouldn't delude ourselves or each other into thinking we only form opinions after whatever vague and arbitrary amount of information is made available. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to lay out in a list who would argue what beforehand, because it's always the same people with the same talking points in every thread.

In the end, only one piece of information actually matters; the nature of the "confrontation" the predicated the use of lethal force. As far as this instance goes, its the only one that will change anyone's minds and knowing our luck it's gonna end up being a total toss up.

Well it's good to know you're too entrenched in your opinion to bother talking to.

I'm more than happy to change my opinion once the facts are known. My opinion on the matter is simply that people are too quick to judge before the facts are actually known and I tend to think the anti-cop side is too willing to accuse people who say "lets wait for evidence" as automatically siding with the cops.

I tend to err on the side of "most people aren't outright evil", so I'm not going to blame the cop for shooting nor the person who got shot for being shot until I am clear on the facts. In that position I more often than not find myself siding with the cop because I despise hearing statements that insinuate someone is bad or automatically in the wrong simply because they wear are badge.

And I will add...

Everyone picked sides on this issue ages ago

Try to stick to what people have said in the actual thread and respond to specific points. It makes you look stupid if you start referring to things that happened ages ago or in other threads without specifying that's what you're doing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm more than happy to change my opinion once the facts are known.

Most people probably are, but it's nice that we can both agree we have an opinion on something before all the facts are known (with the capacity to change it once more specific facts become available). That's just human nature, especially when looking at repetitious events and topics (and oh boy is this a repetitious topic on DDOT. At least a dozen times now).

I tend to err on the side of "most people aren't outright evil"so I'm not going to blame the cop for shooting nor the person who got shot for being shot until I am clear on the facts. In that position I more often than not find myself siding with the cop because I despise hearing statements that insinuate someone is bad or automatically in the wrong simply because they wear are badge.

So you have taken a side? There's nothing wrong with that. We all do it. My beef is that only one side pretends it doesn't, then merrily jumps into the thread to construe its narrative with the eagerness of a cat who finally got at the cat nip denouncing all those people who took the other side as "not having an opinion based in facts" as if their own initial opinion was in any better standing. If you think I'm merely referring to past events, and not the thread in question merely look at the post above my own that you quoted.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

This right here tells me everything I need to know to make an educated guess, based on my own experience.


1-High speed chase. That suspect in question KNEW he was being chased and deliberately continued to refuse to stop. That's a serious thing in most U.S. jurisdictions and FELONY FAILURE TO STOP. This puts the lives of the public and pursuing officers in jeopardy.

2-Chase ends, perp jumps out of the car. When we engaged in pursuits, and the pursuit itself ended, it was SOP for us to exit out vehicles WITH WEAPONS DRAWN. Which is what this Trooper, in all likelyhood, did. When HP joined us in chases, that's what they did when we went to take control of the suspect. That's what we were trained to do to gain quick control of a suspect/situation, and react faster if they decide to fight. I don't care if the guy was a deaf-mute. If he was smart enough to drive a car, and had prior dealings with police, he sure as hell knew what a Trooper pointing his duty weapon at him meant. It means don't move unless he instructs you to, and keep your goddamned hands where he can see them. Getting out of the car, I'm sure he didn't miss a cop pointing his sidearm at him. The perp knew what the drill was.

3-If the guy got out of the car after a chase of this kind, it means one of two things: He's going to bolt or he's going to engage the officer(s). And the boys and girls over at HP are not in the habit of shooting suspects who do a runner, unless the "Fleeing Felon Rule" applies to a given situation.

4-Odds are the guy did one of two things: Appeared to go for a weapon, and/or advanced toward the Trooper without instructions. Both are EQUALLY DANGEROUS in a felony pursuit and stop. If one or both are the case, then deadly force on the Trooper's part was both WITHIN SOP and APPROPRIATE for the situation. It doesn't matter if the guy was armed or not. If he can get close, your life is in danger. Just ask one of my former brother officers a few years ago that was disarmed, and nearly killed with his own duty weapon, after a guy wanted on a felony drug warrant rammed his patrol car, jumped out, and ran toward him in a grocery store parking lot. The punk overpowered him, and disarmed him of his SIG P229. Luckily, he popped the mag out of the gun when he felt like he was going to lose control of the weapon, and (by some miracle) the suspect missed when he fired the chambered round at his head, at close range. Cops being killed by their own duty weapons has been happening since the first police agency was established in the United States. Instances have been reduced due to better training over the last thirty years, but it still happens.

5-People in this thread are making assumptions about training in this circumstance without knowing what the hell they are talking about. The North Carolina Highway Patrol gets better training than local and County agencies. In fact, they have strict guidelines about potential recruits, and they have to attend the Highway Patrol Academy. And the Academy isn't easy to pass if you're not on top of your game. Town cops and "county mounties" are also trained according North Carolina Justice Academy guidelines and have to go through eight weeks of BLET. And if you don't meet all of the guidelines AND pass the exam, you don't get certified. Period. Training isn't always the issue.


That's my take based on the information provided so far. When (or if) we get more details, my personal view on the incident will change. Problem is, when you have an investigation of a shooting incident in police agencies, full details are usually not provided until all is said and done.

From an outsider, none of that sounds like a reason to have been shot. Here, when a suspect jumps out of the car at the end of a pursuit (being in mind we don't know how he did it), they wouldn't come out with guns drawn (when they are even armed) so that they could, you know, chase them on foot. Batons out to shock them by smashing the glass certainly, but surely you should only draw a gun if you were escalated to the point where you might fire?

Surely, neither walking towards or running away from, police officers is not a valid reason to be shot? The only reason to pull the trigger should be if in actual danger, and a man walking towards you from nearly 2 car lengths away without a gun can't be a danger, no?

I mean, I get that things may have become heated after a high speed chase with a collision of some sort, but that happens over here regularly and people still don't get executed.

Herzlos wrote:
and a man walking towards you from nearly 2 car lengths away without a gun can't be a danger, no?

A guy coming at you from 2 car lengths away can indeed be a danger. You need a lot more context than 'two car lengths away' to determine that.

Herzlos wrote:
From an outsider, none of that sounds like a reason to have been shot. Here, when a suspect jumps out of the car at the end of a pursuit (being in mind we don't know how he did it), they wouldn't come out with guns drawn (when they are even armed) so that they could, you know, chase them on foot. Batons out to shock them by smashing the glass certainly, but surely you should only draw a gun if you were escalated to the point where you might fire?

Surely, neither walking towards or running away from, police officers is not a valid reason to be shot? The only reason to pull the trigger should be if in actual danger, and a man walking towards you from nearly 2 car lengths away without a gun can't be a danger, no?

I mean, I get that things may have become heated after a high speed chase with a collision of some sort, but that happens over here regularly and people still don't get executed.

It's culturally ingrained in the USA that when you get pulled over you remain in the vehicle with your hands on the wheel to avoid confusing the situation. Does it make it ok to shoot people just because they got out of their car? No, but it adds to the confusion, just like not pulling over after a 7 mile chase adds to the confusion, just like not putting your hands in the air when cops are pointing guns at you adds to the confusion.

And again you're comparing different countries with very different gun cultures. Going off your flag, you're in Ireland, Ireland has approximately 0.2 gun related homicides per 100k people, the US has 3.4. Police in the US are naturally going to be more likely to assume a suspect might be armed and dangerous because it's true.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
, just like not putting your hands in the air when cops are pointing guns at you adds to the confusion.
.

Considering that sitting on the ground with your arms in the air didn't prevent someone else from being shot...