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.

 cincydooley wrote:
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).

Wasn't the Beavercreek shooting some kind of active shooter situation or something? I vaguely remember that occurring and it seemed strange as Beavercreek is a really nice neighborhood...

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

It does not mean you shoot him. He could be reaching for anything, glasses, hat, licence, paperwork, ect. The first response should not be to shoot.

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

100% what I was thinking as well. Then again, gun in holster vs. gun in the car...wallet in the pocket vs. wallet in the car...not really sure the cop has a leg to stand on. And he seems way too high strung for that line of work. Another fething military wannabe Judge Dredd that the world doesn't need.

I expect the defense to raise a psych issue as the officer had been involved in another shooting last year. My crystal ball tells me that he'll get off. We shall see...hopefully he fries.


Tactically speaking, that was not the most idiotic thing I've ever seen a police officer do, assuming that Jones actually was a threat. Of course, given a frequency distribution of officer shootings by level of tactical prowess exhibited by the officers, you're going to see the distribution skewed heavily in the direction of "idiotic," so take that for what it's worth.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

It does not mean you shoot him. He could be reaching for anything, glasses, hat, licence, paperwork, ect. The first response should not be to shoot.

Did I say that was justification of shooting him?
I myself would not shoot being
1. There's a vehicle between us
2. I also put MY WALLET IN THE PASSENGER SEAT

edit

or in the GLOVE COMPARTMENT

Edit

or in THE CENTER CONSOLE

But, that particular officer has already been in a situation where he was fired at, and survived, and was accommodated for it. He could have been acting on reflex due to experience.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

It does not mean you shoot him. He could be reaching for anything, glasses, hat, licence, paperwork, ect. The first response should not be to shoot.

Did I say that was justification of shooting him?
I myself would not shoot being
1. There's a vehicle between us
2. I also put MY WALLET IN THE PASSENGER SEAT

edit

or in the GLOVE COMPARTMENT

Didn't see that part, must have been a different post.

 mega_bassist wrote:
But, that particular officer has already been in a situation where he was fired at, and survived, and was accommodated for it. He could have been acting on reflex due to experience.

I am use to being fired at but it does not justify me shooting first regardless of situation. The officer had his vehicle between himself and the target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

It does not mean you shoot him. He could be reaching for anything, glasses, hat, licence, paperwork, ect. The first response should not be to shoot.

Did I say that was justification of shooting him?
I myself would not shoot being
1. There's a vehicle between us
2. I also put MY WALLET IN THE PASSENGER SEAT

edit

or in the GLOVE COMPARTMENT

Didn't see that part, must have been a different post.

How thick is your wallet?

 Jihadin wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
But, that particular officer has already been in a situation where he was fired at, and survived, and was accommodated for it. He could have been acting on reflex due to experience.

I am use to being fired at but it does not justify me shooting first regardless of situation. The officer had his vehicle between himself and the target.

Trust me, I'm not trying to justify it. I'm simply trying to point out his possible thought process. I said in both prior posts that the shooting was completely unnecessary, and he deserves any punishment he gets.

 mega_bassist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
But, that particular officer has already been in a situation where he was fired at, and survived, and was accommodated for it. He could have been acting on reflex due to experience.

I am use to being fired at but it does not justify me shooting first regardless of situation. The officer had his vehicle between himself and the target.

Trust me, I'm not trying to justify it. I'm simply trying to point out his possible thought process. I said in both prior posts that the shooting was completely unnecessary, and he deserves any punishment he gets.

I'm tracking you now. Seemed his "fear" of getting shot at again overcame his judgement

Ouze wrote: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.

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

I was referring to the Magic Suit giving cops a 2+ invincible save vs prosecution.

The item that gives a save vs bullets is the Magic Vest.

 Jihadin wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
But, that particular officer has already been in a situation where he was fired at, and survived, and was accommodated for it. He could have been acting on reflex due to experience.

I am use to being fired at but it does not justify me shooting first regardless of situation. The officer had his vehicle between himself and the target.

Trust me, I'm not trying to justify it. I'm simply trying to point out his possible thought process. I said in both prior posts that the shooting was completely unnecessary, and he deserves any punishment he gets.

I'm tracking you now. Seemed his "fear" of getting shot at again overcame his judgement

Exactly. Unfortunate, but seems to the likely explanation for me.

Cop should totally be fired. Wrong personality for the job.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Cop should totally be fired. Wrong personality for the job.

GG

Your a little behind on this thread.....

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

Umm no...

In the video you can see that the hood of the cruiser is in the foreground (although partially obscured by the text box on the news, notice the white metal of the hood below the text box, dashcam hello? dash cams point forwards and capture events in front of the car) The officer crosses in front of the cruiser going from left to right. Dodging to the right in order to take cover behind the target's own vehicle, firing several rounds while in the process, meanwhile the individual is still turning around. You can actually see a later shot go through the vehicle punching hole under the rear window as the officer had at that point placed the target's car in between him and the target, the police cruiser was stationary and nobody was behind it as both the shooter and target were clearly in front of it and in full view of the dash cam. (until the cop moves to the far right and the victim moves to the left before falling)


Initial moment that can easily be interpreted as lunging into the car for something. While the victim did say ok when asked for ID, the victim did not announce he intended to get his ID from inside the vehicle (although that was what he intended) and moves quite quickly which could be misinterpreted as a sign of aggression based on body language. Often individuals will act like they are complying before they suddenly come out shooting or attacking with a weapon. Anytime hands disappear from the view of the officer it's considered a "bad thing" as it's potentially reaching for a weapon and the officer is in a danger zone where they need to make a very quick call to act on gut instinct, open fire or wait to see if it is a weapon. Waiting means they may be putting their life in danger in order to do so.



crossing in front of the police car as victim begins to turn around, hands are not visible to the officer, could be a wallet, could be a weapon can't tell as it's out of the sight of the officer. All he's had to make a judgment is the fact the other man dove into the car and is now turning around quickly.



The moment of firing the first shot while the officer still in the open (in front of his cruiser) and only in view of the targets rear/side profile, victims right side is still out of view.




He fires the first 3 shots before he's out of view on the right side, at the point he fires the 4th or 5th round he's now behind the victims car and you can tell the bullet entered the back window and exits below the rear window which is in frame of the camera.

:02 sec. Target is out the vehicle
:04 sec Officer says "Can I see your license please" also background noise of him opening his car door
:06 sec LEO closes his car door
:07 sec Target turns in lean into the vehicle
:08 sec LEO moved forward from behind (driver side) of his vehicle yelling "get out of the car"
:09 sec Target turned quickly
Between :09 and :10 sec the wallet was in his right hand, arm up bent at the elbow(officer see's object in hand and fires one round)
:10 sec wallet falls to ground (Officer does not see the wallet drop)
Second shot follow when target has both hands down around his pelvic area
:11 sec third shot the Target was clear of his vehicle hands high

LEO moved out of a protected position sliding left to right in front of his vehicle behind the target vehicle.
If he stayed behind his vehicle and waited to verify the individual posed no threat being there's a vehicle between him we would not be having this thread

Bear in mind majority of everyone is right handed. LEO moved in such a way that the target would not have a clear line of sight of the LEO and fire on him. Target is thereby forced to to spend time to acquire LEO in sight while LEO maintain sight of the target.
That LEO seemed way to trigger happy and anxious to initiate a fire fight. That is the type of individual I would partner up with crew serve and he can lug the tripod and ammo for 240 team Also he would spend quite awhile on tower guard duty to learn self control

Edit

Your hearing exit of round from vehicle body

I'm not sure why standing behind a soft-skinned police cruiser has any importance whatsoever. Unless he's taking cover behind the engine block, any firearm that a criminal might have would walk right through the cruiser.

Looks like there two different camera angles, the one on the news is a bit more to the left and shows the hood of the squad car, it appears to be a wider focal angle (as it also captures the roof of the gas station). The raw one that's shown above looks like it's taken from further over to the right side of the vehicle, and there's no view of the hood. While the events are the same, the film quality and lighting is different in both, seems like there were two separate cameras going?

The cop fired far too fast, the last shot even came when the guy was putting his hands up. It's a shame that some people think the car-owner was part to blame because he didn't do the exact right things when a cop shouted at him, but it's the most natural thing to just reach for the licence upon being asked rather than freeze and not comply. I'm surprised tourists aren't shot all the time.

As I've said before, the problem is that guns in the US are so prolific that there's a constant fear than anyone could be packing anywhere. You only have to twitch wrong and a policeman will think you've got a gun. That's why more and more people want to own and carry guns in public, and why you get these unnecessary shootings when people so easily panic. I hear people proudly saying how guns give all this freedom, they make a prison for yourselves through fear.

 d-usa wrote:
We got two officers in Oklahoma who got arrested for raping women on the job ...

Interesting "cops in the news" season...

If you don't want to get raped by a cop, don't give them a reason to pull you over.

The idea that all your actions around police are recorded does sound quite Orwellian. Also, even if the police is not in his/her free time, that does not mean that other people who are recorded wouldn't be in their freetime.



I'm rather interested, is there any source for this claim?

 stanman wrote:
Anytime hands disappear from the view of the officer it's considered a "bad thing" as it's potentially reaching for a weapon and the officer is in a danger zone where they need to make a very quick call to act on gut instinct, open fire or wait to see if it is a weapon. Waiting means they may be putting their life in danger in order to do so.

This is a poor excuse in my book. Don't want to be in danger? Don't be a cop. It's a dangerous job, and that doesn't give you carte blanche to blast anyone whose hands you can't see for a moment. I am sure Jihadin could correct me on this if I'm wrong but I suspect the military in a war zone has tighter ROE.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The cop fired far too fast, the last shot even came when the guy was putting his hands up. It's a shame that some people think the car-owner was part to blame because he didn't do the exact right things when a cop shouted at him, but it's the most natural thing to just reach for the licence upon being asked rather than freeze and not comply. I'm surprised tourists aren't shot all the time.

As I've said before, the problem is that guns in the US are so prolific that there's a constant fear than anyone could be packing anywhere. You only have to twitch wrong and a policeman will think you've got a gun. That's why more and more people want to own and carry guns in public, and why you get these unnecessary shootings when people so easily panic. I hear people proudly saying how guns give all this freedom, they make a prison for yourselves through fear.

Tourists aren't shot all the time because most cops are a lot better at their jobs than this one.

Also, for the most part, the reason more people want to own and carry a weapon doesn't have anything to do with police shootings, but more to do with criminals. I know a lot of you guys across the pond like to read your own agenda and hangups into American gun culture, but it's not what you think it is.

He will claim PTSD because he was involved in a shooting with an active gunman a year before.

I wouldn't bust the cops balls too much if he would have just drawn his gun. I still think it would have been a bit silly, but drawing when you are worried is quite a difference than shooting someone when you have no indication of a clear threat and are just "worried".

In the US, there is a trend that people showing anything less than total obedience to police officers triggers violence up to and including deadly force under the rationale that the officer's life is endangered.

This needs to be dealt with on the front end with emphasis during training on judgment and discretion and on the back end with criminal and civil liability (not just disciplinary action).

Cop eagerly takes first opportunity to shoot a black guy he gets. News at 11. Call me if they actually put this one away.

 Hordini wrote:
I'm not sure why standing behind a soft-skinned police cruiser has any importance whatsoever. Unless he's taking cover behind the engine block, any firearm that a criminal might have would walk right through the cruiser.

I've taking cover a few times behind Hadji cars when 7.62 and RPG comes down a street. Like I said before. He let his fear overcome his judgement

By no means am I justifying this idiot actions but his serious lack of situational awareness is piss poor..

 cincydooley wrote:
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).

I've a friend from the Dayton area, and according to the folks around there (including one family member of my friend who claims to know "most" of the police there) that that particular situation was more the fault of the 911 caller, and his description of the situation being far worse than security footage shows. It would make it seem much more clear how, based on the 911 call that the responding officers would be more "amped up" or whatever you want to call it when arriving, however it is agreed that if they had waited even .0001 of a second longer to assess the situation, a lot of heartache and headaches could have been avoided.

 Jihadin wrote:
I've taking cover a few times behind Hadji cars when 7.62 and RPG comes down a street. Like I said before. He let his fear overcome his judgement.

So, a quick aside cause now I am kinda wondering. What kind of rounds are the insurgents firing? 7.62 steel cased, steel core? Did the civilian vehicles provide any actual protection, aside from the engine block, or was it more of a "bad cover beats no cover" situation?

I don't any civilian vehicle provides any reasonable cover besides the engine to any remotely modern bullets.

What cover they actually provide is preventing the shooter from knowing exactly where you are.

When you think about what a car is actually made of. You realize there's nothing between the bullet and you besides 2 very thin layers of aluminum and/or glass that is designed to shatter. Maybe some foam insulation and little metal springs.