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.

This cop is looking at doing 20 years for this one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The amazing thing is he's in jail and might actually be punished.

Right? I bet if there was no video, this guy would still be in uniform.

This here is the exact reason why cameras are so important. I've heard it mentioned to even have cameras not just in the car, but also on officers' uniforms. I think its a good idea.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The amazing thing is he's in jail and might actually be punished.

It's not that amazing.

We got two officers in Oklahoma who got arrested for raping women on the job and another case that might be shaping up for shooing a guy that was running away after stabbing a police dog.

Interesting "cops in the news" season...

A grand jury just refused to indict the two cops in the Beavercreek, Ohio wal Mart shooting as well.

We have all sorts of racially charged shenanigans going on in SW ohio right now (although Beavercreek is just north of Dayton).

Definitely not blaming the victim, but getting out of your car, and then going back in like he did wasn't the best idea. However, the shooting wasn't justified at all. Hopefully some punishment will be coming to him.

 mega_bassist wrote:
Definitely not blaming the victim, but getting out of your car, and then going back in like he did wasn't the best idea. However, the shooting wasn't justified at all. Hopefully some punishment will be coming to him.

What is the proper way to get your license, if its inside the car without getting shot?

Stay in your car till the officer ask for the license and you hand it to him over your left shoulder?

<edited out for irrelevancy>

 Jihadin wrote:
Stay in your car till the officer ask for the license and you hand it to him over your left shoulder?

This. You have no reason to get out of your car unless the officer requests you to. Hell, you're not even supposed to start digging around your car for your license/registration unless the officer requests you too. Sit there, belt buckled, and hands on the wheel.

But like I stated in my first post, what the guy did definitely didn't justify any kind of shooting. The officer should get reprimanded.

 Jihadin wrote:
Stay in your car till the officer ask for the license and you hand it to him over your left shoulder?

He was outside of the car already as the officer pulled up though, which the story states.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Stay in your car till the officer ask for the license and you hand it to him over your left shoulder?

He was outside of the car already as the officer pulled up though, which the story states.

In this year's incident, police said Groubert, 31, stopped Jones in the parking lot of a Circle K station in daylight, for what police say was an alleged seat belt violation, around 5 p.m.
Video that authorities say was recorded from Groubert's police car shows the trooper driving up to a vehicle just as its driver -- who authorities say is Jones -- steps out of the vehicle.

I originally read that as the officer pulled him over, and then he got out of his car; not pulling up to him after he was outside of the vehicle.

jasper76 wrote:This cop is looking at doing 20 years for this one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The only justification I can invent for the cop would be that cops getting shot around there is quite common. If not, the cop was certanly too agressive.

jasper76 wrote:Right? I bet if there was no video, this guy would still be in uniform.

This here is the exact reason why cameras are so important. I've heard it mentioned to even have cameras not just in the car, but also on officers' uniforms. I think its a good idea.

While it does sound like a good idea, having cameras on every officer does start to seem a bit too Orwellian.

 mega_bassist wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Stay in your car till the officer ask for the license and you hand it to him over your left shoulder?

He was outside of the car already as the officer pulled up though, which the story states.

In this year's incident, police said Groubert, 31, stopped Jones in the parking lot of a Circle K station in daylight, for what police say was an alleged seat belt violation, around 5 p.m.
Video that authorities say was recorded from Groubert's police car shows the trooper driving up to a vehicle just as its driver -- who authorities say is Jones -- steps out of the vehicle.

I originally read that as the officer pulled him over, and then he got out of his car; not pulling up to him after he was outside of the vehicle.

Ditto

I'm glad the cop is being prosecuted. I've had just about enough of things that would land a citizen in jail for life being handwaved away because the offender was wearing the magic suit.

That "magic suit" didn't work in PA for two state troopers though

 Jihadin wrote:
That "magic suit" didn't work in PA for two state troopers though

Tell that to the infant flashbanged in his crib.

I mean, and I know you're not saying that justice is always service. I mean, I know justice for excessive force does happen, but it's not exactly like it's widespread.

I guess I'm still just angry about that, and other stuff. Probably best to ignore me.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

jasper76 wrote:This cop is looking at doing 20 years for this one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The only justification I can invent for the cop would be that cops getting shot around there is quite common. If not, the cop was certanly too agressive.

jasper76 wrote:Right? I bet if there was no video, this guy would still be in uniform.

This here is the exact reason why cameras are so important. I've heard it mentioned to even have cameras not just in the car, but also on officers' uniforms. I think its a good idea.

While it does sound like a good idea, having cameras on every officer does start to seem a bit too Orwellian.

Orwellian? Seriously?

Let me ask, what is Orwellian about the public servants (police) being monitored while doing public work? They are not monitored on their private time.

 curran12 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

jasper76 wrote:This cop is looking at doing 20 years for this one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The only justification I can invent for the cop would be that cops getting shot around there is quite common. If not, the cop was certanly too agressive.

jasper76 wrote:Right? I bet if there was no video, this guy would still be in uniform.

This here is the exact reason why cameras are so important. I've heard it mentioned to even have cameras not just in the car, but also on officers' uniforms. I think its a good idea.

While it does sound like a good idea, having cameras on every officer does start to seem a bit too Orwellian.

Orwellian? Seriously?

Let me ask, what is Orwellian about the public servants (police) being monitored while doing public work? They are not monitored on their private time.

And it definitely has been shown to decrease police brutality and racialy motivated arrests, while at the same time making a handy record of ll observed crimes.

 daedalus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
That "magic suit" didn't work in PA for two state troopers though

Tell that to the infant flashbanged in his crib.

I mean, and I know you're not saying that justice is always service. I mean, I know justice for excessive force does happen, but it's not exactly like it's widespread.

I guess I'm still just angry about that, and other stuff. Probably best to ignore me.

We went over that. Militarization of the LEO's (Manchu thread). Cop was not trained at all in the use of that device at all. Like I said in that thread one is suppose to skip it across the floor to draw attention away from the door instead of tossing the thing in.

We can do "count and counter point" to this but let's not try to label the entire LEO agencies in the nation in a negative viewpoint on the action of a few.

I think what was meant was having law enforcement constantly filming everything would be Orwellian, and I sort of agree. It's hard to nail down the public interest in terms of police monitoring of themselves and of the public.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

jasper76 wrote:This cop is looking at doing 20 years for this one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The only justification I can invent for the cop would be that cops getting shot around there is quite common. If not, the cop was certanly too agressive.

jasper76 wrote:Right? I bet if there was no video, this guy would still be in uniform.

This here is the exact reason why cameras are so important. I've heard it mentioned to even have cameras not just in the car, but also on officers' uniforms. I think its a good idea.

While it does sound like a good idea, having cameras on every officer does start to seem a bit too Orwellian.

Orwellian? Seriously?

Let me ask, what is Orwellian about the public servants (police) being monitored while doing public work? They are not monitored on their private time.

And it definitely has been shown to decrease police brutality and racialy motivated arrests, while at the same time making a handy record of ll observed crimes.

And to be fair to both sides: it also decreases the accusation of police brutality and racially motivated crimes because criminals know that their shenanigans are being recorded which makes it hard to play the race card.

It protects the public AND the officers.

 jasper76 wrote:
I think what was meant was having law enforcement constantly filming everything would be Orwellian, and I sort of agree. It's hard to nail down the public interest in terms of police monitoring of themselves and of the public.

When does it become a invasion of privacy issue

 d-usa wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

jasper76 wrote:This cop is looking at doing 20 years for this one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The only justification I can invent for the cop would be that cops getting shot around there is quite common. If not, the cop was certanly too agressive.

jasper76 wrote:Right? I bet if there was no video, this guy would still be in uniform.

This here is the exact reason why cameras are so important. I've heard it mentioned to even have cameras not just in the car, but also on officers' uniforms. I think its a good idea.

While it does sound like a good idea, having cameras on every officer does start to seem a bit too Orwellian.

Orwellian? Seriously?

Let me ask, what is Orwellian about the public servants (police) being monitored while doing public work? They are not monitored on their private time.

And it definitely has been shown to decrease police brutality and racialy motivated arrests, while at the same time making a handy record of ll observed crimes.

And to be fair to both sides: it also decreases the accusation of police brutality and racially motivated crimes because criminals know that their shenanigans are being recorded which makes it hard to play the race card.

It protects the public AND the officers.

Yep.

@Jihadin: Exactly. I want a cop to have video running for pullovers, or responses to violent incidents perhaps.

But the tape shouldn't be rolling when a cop walks in on grandma and grandpa doin the nasty because the neighbor thinks there dog is barking too loud.

I thought the guy was moving pretty dang quickly and can see how that sets off alarm bells with the cop who's already tense. My first impression was that it looked like he'd lunged for a weapon particularly with the speed he spun back around at while keeping his back to the officer. Granted it was just his wallet but when you have fractions of a second to respond to a situation often that gut reaction is based off body language rather than seeing an actual weapon, by the time you see things it may be too late. IMO when dealing with police who are armed and drawn it's simply best not to move and if instructed to do so, do it as slow as possible so that there's no mistaking the intent of the motion. Quick movements can be misinterpreted or when your hands aren't visible can make you dead real fast. While I don't think he should have fired those shots I can see how he misread the situation.

 stanman wrote:
I thought the guy was moving pretty dang quickly and can see how that sets off alarm bells with the cop who's already tense. My first impression was that it looked like he'd lunged for a weapon particularly with the speed he spun back around at while keeping his back to the officer. Granted it was just his wallet but when you have fractions of a second to respond to a situation often that gut reaction is based off body language rather than seeing an actual weapon, by the time you see things it may be too late. IMO when dealing with police who are armed and drawn it's simply best not to move and if instructed to do so, do it as slow as possible so that there's no mistaking the intent of the motion. Quick movements can be misinterpreted or when your hands aren't visible can make you dead real fast. While I don't think he should have fired those shots I can see how he misread the situation.

The police cruiser was between the target and the shooter

I can see *why* the cop shot. I can also see that he has absolutely no business being a law enforcement officer, and he needs to go to jail for a long, long time.

Shooting a man in an ambiguous situation that the officer created through his own words is not one of those situations where the "I thought he was reaching for a gun!" defense can really apply. It's not as if his movement was unsolicited.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I can see *why* the cop shot. I can also see that he has absolutely no business being a law enforcement officer, and he needs to go to jail for a long, long time.

Shooting a man in an ambiguous situation that the officer created through his own words is not one of those situations where the "I thought he was reaching for a gun!" defense can really apply. It's not as if his movement was unsolicited.

Cop thinking wallet was in the target back pocket and not on the passenger seat