Great analysis. How are cops supposed to handle anyone armed with anything that remotely looks like a gun without first being shot to determine it was real? These prosecutors have no clue of the fear, pressure, and weight of making a split second decision to either see your family again, or make damn sure the gun is real before taking action. It’s sad that maybe happenstance put the gun and the kid in the same square yard, but it’s not the cop’s fault. Great article as usual.
Just because the kid said it was a BB gun did not mean it actually was. And if it was not a BB gun, the fact that the kid was still able to move posed a threat. I don't see how the deputy can be found guilty of a crime.
The kid pulled a weapon. The officer made a life or death decision. He protected his life. People need to put themselves in that predicament see if they shit themselves or pull. The trigger officer is not guilty in my humble opinion.
I absolutely agree with the vast majority of your breakdown here. Right now all I've seen is some vehicle camera video and body camera video that doesn't show where the subject was when the deputy fired the follow-up shots. If the deputys perception was that the subject was reaching for the firearm then shots to prevent him from doing so are absolutely Justified under every State's law that I'm aware of and in every training scenario I've ever seen. In the plumhoff case, the Supreme Court ruled that the number of shots was not relevant as long as the reason for shooting was reasonable and Justified and I believe it was here. The only thing that you and I differ on is on where the gun was when the shots were fired but it's actually a minor detail. I can't put screenshots here but we both know what the force Science Institute says about action and reaction when it comes to a subject being shot and like the atom Toledo case, the officer acted immediately upon seeing the threat. In this case the subject grabbed the firearm and pulled it out very quickly and I don't know exactly when the officer observed the gun and at what point he felt the threat but his first shots were fired when the gun was about 8 in to a foot off the ground. A falling object falls at 32 ft per second per second meaning that from the time the subject dropped the gun to the time it would have hit the ground would have been probably less than a second and the gun had not yet hit the ground when the deputy fired his first four rounds. This Deputy made a split second decision based on a perceived threat for those initial shots and I will not fault him for that. As you explained, the remainder of the shots are hard to discuss because we can't see the subject or see what the deputy saw when he fired those shots. Charging this officer with murder is prosecutorial misconduct and prosecutor persecution in my opinion.
The thing is. The DA. I know him. He’s really pro-cop & even represented an officer in my city about a decade ago in a very controversial case when he was a defense attorney. I’ll be interested to see his arguments.
Another problem… you need to stand by your officers when they are justified… This is not a case of police brutality. If we can’t have good police leaders to stand up for their department, then they need to go as well. When it’s wrong it’s wrong, however, when it’s a justified shooting, they need to step up and do their job as well.
While tragic, there is no pretty use of deadly force. Officers have to make split second decions to protect their life and others around them. Police work isn't as text book and lead to belive on TV shows. We tend to focus on the officers actions and not lay any blame on the victim. We don't point or threaten officers with weapons. Officers do not know the intent or mental state of a person when arriving on a scene. Police work escalates quickly, suspects can shoot from the ground when injured. Again, a tragic situaton all around but the officer in my opinion handle it the best to his abilities at that time. Remember, his adreneline and stress level from this critical incident has him action mode. If he had time to take cover behind his car, would that have stopped a bullet? No. If we continue to hold officers accountable for doing their job to the best of their abilities with no malicious intent...we won't have men and woment to step up and protect us. It really is a double edge sword.
The conclusion that this is a complicated case is correct. The video does not present enough evidence to draw a valid conclusion whether or not the shots fired after the first 4 are justified. It will be for the legal system to sort that out. May a just decision be made.
this was a 17 year old... lets not forget that... for an officer to use brutal action against a teen..... THIS WAS A WELFARE CHECK THAT ENDED IN A 17 YEAR OLDS DEATH. wtf. This sad excuse of an officer failed at his job that night, its disgusting... no way even 4 shots were reasonable... the other two rounds were just disgraceful and clearly he was trigger happy.... so much for serve and protect...
I hope the victims family get the peace they deserve and this "officer" never handles a gun again.
There's some missing details that are important that you didn't ask... w/out doing my own research on this, what was the welfare check for? Was it from a friend of family member saying he was suicidal or mentally decomposing? Or was it a concerned motorist who doesn't know him but just concerned due to the suspect walking alongside the road? Those details matter.. When the deputy first made contact w/ the suspect, did he have his handgun drawn already due to what he had information on or what he observed? By the deputy's late reaction to his dropping the gun, I'd assume not. The suspect's action of reaching then dropping the gun by the handle and not with a shooting grip on the gun showed much of his intentions for that contraband.
Had the deputy shot him as he was reaching or just as he saw the handgun in his hand, the first volley would be completely justified. Action beats reaction every time and it appears the suspect "beat" the deputy due to him not being ready.. that might scare the crap out of him but sometimes it works out that way.
The deputy's actions after he shot the suspect are becoming a common problem as of late with the new way of training officers in the country; not to be in fear but to be scared. Fear and fright are two different mindsets. They make officers act in different ways. Why would any LE officer want to retreat when it appears he had the advantage and give up his proximity and view of the suspects actions?! There were only he and the suspect. I don't like to give up history already gained and the suspect abandoned the weapon.
I don't suggest taking the suspect's outcry that the weapon was a BB gun as honest but at that point, one could assess he might be telling the truth. That doesn't mean you drop your guard and holster your weapon but, in my opinion, the deputy should've approached suspect giving him commands to submit. There's nothing wrong with pulling the suspect away from the gun if you feel he's too close to it for your comfort or moving it away from his reach.
I'm sure some will say I'm "Monday morning quarterbacking" but I do expert testimony in defense of officers in similar situations for attorneys and would assess it the same way. I would however be privy of the full video footage not blurred out. Just my 2 cents.
You, sir, are a certified idiot…It seems YOU are “wound too tight” and your only outlet is to troll LE sites.
The real shame is you are not alone - many in this country have your same, moronic, belief that every OIS is an act of aggression and not self defense.
Great analysis. How are cops supposed to handle anyone armed with anything that remotely looks like a gun without first being shot to determine it was real? These prosecutors have no clue of the fear, pressure, and weight of making a split second decision to either see your family again, or make damn sure the gun is real before taking action. It’s sad that maybe happenstance put the gun and the kid in the same square yard, but it’s not the cop’s fault. Great article as usual.
Thank you sir!
Just because the kid said it was a BB gun did not mean it actually was. And if it was not a BB gun, the fact that the kid was still able to move posed a threat. I don't see how the deputy can be found guilty of a crime.
The kid pulled a weapon. The officer made a life or death decision. He protected his life. People need to put themselves in that predicament see if they shit themselves or pull. The trigger officer is not guilty in my humble opinion.
I absolutely agree with the vast majority of your breakdown here. Right now all I've seen is some vehicle camera video and body camera video that doesn't show where the subject was when the deputy fired the follow-up shots. If the deputys perception was that the subject was reaching for the firearm then shots to prevent him from doing so are absolutely Justified under every State's law that I'm aware of and in every training scenario I've ever seen. In the plumhoff case, the Supreme Court ruled that the number of shots was not relevant as long as the reason for shooting was reasonable and Justified and I believe it was here. The only thing that you and I differ on is on where the gun was when the shots were fired but it's actually a minor detail. I can't put screenshots here but we both know what the force Science Institute says about action and reaction when it comes to a subject being shot and like the atom Toledo case, the officer acted immediately upon seeing the threat. In this case the subject grabbed the firearm and pulled it out very quickly and I don't know exactly when the officer observed the gun and at what point he felt the threat but his first shots were fired when the gun was about 8 in to a foot off the ground. A falling object falls at 32 ft per second per second meaning that from the time the subject dropped the gun to the time it would have hit the ground would have been probably less than a second and the gun had not yet hit the ground when the deputy fired his first four rounds. This Deputy made a split second decision based on a perceived threat for those initial shots and I will not fault him for that. As you explained, the remainder of the shots are hard to discuss because we can't see the subject or see what the deputy saw when he fired those shots. Charging this officer with murder is prosecutorial misconduct and prosecutor persecution in my opinion.
Thank you for the analysis.
The 1st degree murder charge is insane.
The thing is. The DA. I know him. He’s really pro-cop & even represented an officer in my city about a decade ago in a very controversial case when he was a defense attorney. I’ll be interested to see his arguments.
Another problem… you need to stand by your officers when they are justified… This is not a case of police brutality. If we can’t have good police leaders to stand up for their department, then they need to go as well. When it’s wrong it’s wrong, however, when it’s a justified shooting, they need to step up and do their job as well.
While tragic, there is no pretty use of deadly force. Officers have to make split second decions to protect their life and others around them. Police work isn't as text book and lead to belive on TV shows. We tend to focus on the officers actions and not lay any blame on the victim. We don't point or threaten officers with weapons. Officers do not know the intent or mental state of a person when arriving on a scene. Police work escalates quickly, suspects can shoot from the ground when injured. Again, a tragic situaton all around but the officer in my opinion handle it the best to his abilities at that time. Remember, his adreneline and stress level from this critical incident has him action mode. If he had time to take cover behind his car, would that have stopped a bullet? No. If we continue to hold officers accountable for doing their job to the best of their abilities with no malicious intent...we won't have men and woment to step up and protect us. It really is a double edge sword.
The conclusion that this is a complicated case is correct. The video does not present enough evidence to draw a valid conclusion whether or not the shots fired after the first 4 are justified. It will be for the legal system to sort that out. May a just decision be made.
this was a 17 year old... lets not forget that... for an officer to use brutal action against a teen..... THIS WAS A WELFARE CHECK THAT ENDED IN A 17 YEAR OLDS DEATH. wtf. This sad excuse of an officer failed at his job that night, its disgusting... no way even 4 shots were reasonable... the other two rounds were just disgraceful and clearly he was trigger happy.... so much for serve and protect...
I hope the victims family get the peace they deserve and this "officer" never handles a gun again.
There's some missing details that are important that you didn't ask... w/out doing my own research on this, what was the welfare check for? Was it from a friend of family member saying he was suicidal or mentally decomposing? Or was it a concerned motorist who doesn't know him but just concerned due to the suspect walking alongside the road? Those details matter.. When the deputy first made contact w/ the suspect, did he have his handgun drawn already due to what he had information on or what he observed? By the deputy's late reaction to his dropping the gun, I'd assume not. The suspect's action of reaching then dropping the gun by the handle and not with a shooting grip on the gun showed much of his intentions for that contraband.
Had the deputy shot him as he was reaching or just as he saw the handgun in his hand, the first volley would be completely justified. Action beats reaction every time and it appears the suspect "beat" the deputy due to him not being ready.. that might scare the crap out of him but sometimes it works out that way.
The deputy's actions after he shot the suspect are becoming a common problem as of late with the new way of training officers in the country; not to be in fear but to be scared. Fear and fright are two different mindsets. They make officers act in different ways. Why would any LE officer want to retreat when it appears he had the advantage and give up his proximity and view of the suspects actions?! There were only he and the suspect. I don't like to give up history already gained and the suspect abandoned the weapon.
I don't suggest taking the suspect's outcry that the weapon was a BB gun as honest but at that point, one could assess he might be telling the truth. That doesn't mean you drop your guard and holster your weapon but, in my opinion, the deputy should've approached suspect giving him commands to submit. There's nothing wrong with pulling the suspect away from the gun if you feel he's too close to it for your comfort or moving it away from his reach.
I'm sure some will say I'm "Monday morning quarterbacking" but I do expert testimony in defense of officers in similar situations for attorneys and would assess it the same way. I would however be privy of the full video footage not blurred out. Just my 2 cents.
This is a great situation to discuss.
You, sir, are a certified idiot…It seems YOU are “wound too tight” and your only outlet is to troll LE sites.
The real shame is you are not alone - many in this country have your same, moronic, belief that every OIS is an act of aggression and not self defense.
30+ years. It’s been my experience that the largest agencies can hide the worst employees…Seems to be a perfect example.
Name me any legitimate LE agency that calls itself a “body?” I’ll wait piss ant.
"Muggs" appears to be a troll account, not a retired LE