The absolute worst time for a police officer to be involved in an Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) with a black man was in the Spring/Summer of 2020. The individual and specific facts of any particular case had no place in polite society. Objectivity, case law, training, and common sense took a backseat to faux moral panic engineered by Dishonest Critics.
Anti-police activists used the volatile atmosphere of 2020 as a blank check to cash in on and accomplish their goals of defunding police and destabilizing communities.
Austin, Texas Police Officer Christopher Taylor was caught in and still fighting his way out of this insane matrix.
Reason for Police Involvement
In April of 2020 Austin, Texas Police Officers were dispatched to an apartment complex in reference to a call for service. Officers responded to a 911 call - this was not the result of proactive or aggressive policing. This was not a bullshit traffic stop for a broken taillight - officers were required to respond.
The caller reported that a male and female were in a “gold Prius” and were “smoking crack and cooking meth”. The caller also reported that the male had a gun and was pointing it at the female.
Seriousness of the Call
If the call were just about two people doing drugs in a car - that likely would have been a low priority incident (especially in Austin). If this is all that had been reported - the call would have likely been “holding” for a long time and when officers were finally dispatched several hours later - the involved individuals would have been long gone, like drug-fueled ghosts in weird cityscape.
However, the report of a man pointing a gun at a female made this a high priority call. This information upgraded the otherwise routine call for service to a life or death situation. A person being held at gunpoint - is just about the most serious call that could possibly come into a dispatch center. A call like this elicits an immediate response from police officers.
Force Array
If possible, when responding to a serious call like this one, police officers should quickly come up with a “game plan”. If possible, officers should conduct a quick briefing and determine things such as: the approach route, which officer will give verbal commands, and which officers be armed with lethal and less lethal munitions.1
This is all important to establish prior to the arrival on scene in an effort to combat chaos and ensure professionalism and competency in dynamic situations. The time and effort taken to conduct a quick briefing is evidence of well-trained and prudent police officers who possess the intent to resolve the incident safely and with the goal of preserving life.
Austin police officers did exactly this prior to arrival on scene.
Contact
Officers arrived on scene and located the gold Prius. Officers observed a male in the driver’s seat and a female in the passenger seat. An officer gave specific and easy to follow verbal commands to Michael Ramos (who was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle). Mr. Ramos was able to hear and understand the commands - as he initially followed the instructions from police. Mr. Ramos exited the vehicle, held his hands in the air, and walked towards the front of his vehicle.
Now, though Mr. Ramos physically did comply initially with police officers - he was verbally combative as he yelled and pleaded with police officers that he had done “nothing wrong”.
It was when Mr. Ramos was at the front of the vehicle that he began to not follow the commands from police. An officer gave the command for Mr. Ramos to walk backwards towards the officers. Instead Mr. Ramos walked in the opposite direction and towards the driver’s side door of his vehicle. A police officer gave a warning to Mr. Ramos that force would be utilized if he did not comply with the commands. This was an unsuccessful attempt to alter the behavior of Mr. Ramos - as he started to slink into the driver’s seat.
An officer then deployed a less lethal bean bag shotgun munition at Mr. Ramos. This had zero effect on the behavior of Mr. Ramos and he closed the driver’s side door once back inside of the vehicle.
Officers continued to give verbal commands. Mr. Ramos then accelerated the vehicle forward.
The OIS
As the vehicle passed by police officers, Officer Taylor fired three rounds at Mr. Ramos.
Mr. Ramos was struck and did not survive his injuries.
The female passenger was not injured.
(Body cam and 911 call of this OIS)
Charges
A Travis County grand jury indicted Officer Taylor on a first-degree murder charge, and if convicted, faces life in prison.
Officer Taylor was slated to go on trial last week, however, a mistrial was declared by the judge amid allegations of potential jury tampering and the inability to seat a jury.
The mistrial came after a week of jury selection, where several oddities occurred including a locked courtroom door, travel interference with some potential jurors, and "mysterious envelopes" that were found on two potential jurors' vehicles.
This is a temporary reprieve. Officer Taylor will be retried.
The newly elected District Attorney Jose Garza ran on a platform of police “accountability” and promised to prosecute police officers if elected. DA Garza has made good on his campaign promises and Officer Taylor is one of several officers facing charges under this police abolitionist regime.
Analysis
Even complex cases can be broken down and a reasonable opinion can be reached by examining a few important issues and asking a couple relevant questions:
If Officer Taylor had a reasonable belief that the female passenger was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury - the OIS was lawful.
If Officer Taylor believed that the female passenger was a victim of an aggravated assault and was being kidnapped at gunpoint - and that belief was reasonable - the OIS was lawful.
If this was the belief held by Officer Taylor at the moment that he pulled the trigger and there is objective evidence that could be articulated to support this belief - the OIS was lawful.
The fact that no gun was located after the OIS is literally not relevant. It only matters what Officer Taylor knew (or should have known) at the exact moment of the OIS.
*Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
The Dishonesty
The single most relevant piece of information on why Officer Taylor fired his weapon - is the fact that there was a credible report that Mr. Ramos had a gun and had pointed it at/threatened the female victim. This is evidence of armed robbery, armed kidnapping, or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This is the reason the OIS occurred.
Whether or not you believe that the OIS was lawful - we should at minimum agree on why the trigger was pulled - based on objective evidence. We should discuss, debate, and operate in the same reality.
However, in many media reports those facts were omitted. For example, here is an excerpt from a local media report on the case, “Ramos, a 42-year-old Black and Hispanic man, was unarmed when he was shot by police last April at a southeast Austin apartment complex as he was driving out of a parking space.” There is zero mention of the information that was provided to police of the alleged armed kidnapping/threat with a gun - in the entire article.
If the average reader is being spoon-fed only the pieces of the story that fit neatly into the anti-police narrative - it is not surprising why people would be in support of Officer Taylor being prosecuted.
As Travis Yates has poignantly stated, “if I thought 1000 of any race were being killed “unarmed” each year, I may start a fire in Target as well.”
Just Comply
Just comply. I do not give this advice because I am a tyrant who does not care about the Constitutional rights of individuals. I give this advice because I want less violence between police and citizens. I want both police officers and citizens to survive. That’s it. That is the goal. Our society already has a mechanism installed for when individuals are wronged by police officers and shockingly it is not fighting with police officers on the side of the road.
If you do not resist arrest, flee from, threaten, or fight with police officers there is virtually2 zero statistical risk of being killed by a police officer.
Even in a situation where you know that you did not commit a crime. You have no idea what information a police officer was given by dispatch or a witness. If you are truly innocent - the worst possible way to express that to a police officer is to flee or fight.
And if your rights are violated by a police officer - file a lawsuit. There are hundreds of hungry civil rights attorneys in every state that will be fighting to represent you on a legitimate civil rights case - as this is extremely easy money for even mediocre lawyers.
Final Thoughts
Police officers do not possess psychic ability. Officer Taylor only had the option to act based on the actual information that he possessed at the time of the OIS.
Evaluating this case through the lens of perfect 20/20 hindsight is an exercise undertaken by those who enjoy the luxury of never having to make a life or death decision under stress and inside of rapidly evolving circumstances. But, not to worry cowards, there do exist men and women who risk their lives so that you can continue to demonize them behind the very veil of security that you prosecute for political gain.
This can occur over the radio if not possible to “brief” in person.
It is not absolute zero (ie, Tyre Nichols, Justine Ruszczyk). Very rare but still possible.
Outstanding article. Your points were sound, well reasoned and persuasive. I hope this is shared to a large law enforcement audience.