[WonderNine]

Three different cam views on the right side of the link.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/video/shooting051103/index.shtml

Of course all the cops over at glocktalk are applauding it. I think the guy was very stupid, but their reaction seemed excessive. Oh well Darwin rules!

Here's the thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=159471

Highroader comments?

[CZ-75]

Hey, the cops were all for shooting a curious and friendly family dog, so why not an unarmed human? :barf:

[Erik]

I'd have shot him.

In real time without the hindsight of frame by frame photo evaluation and believing that phone to be a weapon, which the BG clearly represented it as, you betcha I would have.

Actually, I'd have probably shot him from the get go, had I believed for a split second that the phone the BG was clearly representing as a gun was in fact a gun leveled at myself or another officer.

[geojap]

I think it's pretty obvious they could have used non-lethal force to subdue him. I counted at least 7 times they shot him in the back. It was obvious that wasn't a firearm in his hand.

On the other hand, they guy was a complete dumbass to run from the cops like that. What was he thinking? In some ways I want to say he deserved it, because only a complete idiot would get into a stupid car chase like that.

However, that still doesn't justify the cops, who are supposed to take the legal and moral high ground, shooting him in the back when they didn't need to.

But that's Louisiana for you. Don't screw with the cops there (or here in Texas!). It's not good for your health.

[WonderNine]

I understand what you're saying, I mean there were 3 big cops there twice as big as this guy and they had batons and pepper spray.

[laynlow]

Good shoot.

[Don Gwinn]

It seems like a good place for a taser, but they probably didn't have one. I WANT to stand up for this guy, but I'm just not able to do it. What does anyone think is going to happen if an officer gives you a clear command and you don't follow it?

(And no, for all you Hypothetical Harries out there, obviously if a corrupt cop gives you an order to "hold this gun and lay down on the pavement" while pulling on gloves, then you might consider resisting. But when a cop tells me to stand still, sit down, etc, I'll do it.)

[CZ-75]

Too bad a citizen would get in big trouble for shooting a perp pointing a cell phone at him. :rolleyes:

[Carlos Cabeza]

[SS JBT] Drop the phone and get on the ground ! I SAID DROP THE F @^%#$N' PHONE AND GET ON THE GROUND !!!!!
BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM in the back no less [/SS JBT]:rolleyes:

edited for : a bit extreme I know, criminals ain't known for thier smarts.

[CR_OPSO]

But if they truly thought it was a gun - then why would you require them to spray him? I can't watch the video (crappy PC), but the still photos showed he clearing took a firing stance and leveled something at the officers. The time between the first and last still photo is only 9 seconds. Also, it appears (but I could be wrong - no sound with still photos) that one officer was ducking thinking he was about to be shot by the suspect when the other officer fired to defend him. "Shot in the back" always sounds bad - it implies the person shot wasn't a threat. In this pic, both officers look to be in immediate danger (IF he really had a gun) and the officer on the right will most likely hit the guy in the back from that angle.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/22.jpg

We'd have to be there to really know what we'd have done - looking at the stills, you'd think the officer that had his hands on the suspect could have seen it was a phone - but maybe not. And what's with shoving the gun in his face - they don't teach that in training. But once the suspect ran a little and spun back around, he COULD have pulled a gun from his coat.

Bottom line - don't act like you're shooting at the police and you won't get shot (usually).
Just my .02,
CR

[WonderNine]

The cop that shoved the gun in his face seemed scared. He should have knocked the guy to the ground. I think that's what led to the shooting and death of the perp (along with the deceased badguy's extreme stupidity).

[Quantrill]

Typical - For a cop!! What did you expect? Somebody that could think. I think that is murder. Q

[voilsb]

I also can't watch the video (also because of a crappy computer), but from the stills that shooting looked rather justified.

if, after a chase (may or may not have been an intense one; I can't say), the guy gets out and pulls something on you, holding it very much like a gun (and which looks quite like one in some of the pictures ... espeically if you're not looking at them up close), training kicks in.

and that's what it was, training. a bad guy pointed something at them in a gun like manner, and their training said "shoot him" so they did. when under pressure, you react how you're trained, not how you ideally expect to.

also, as pointed out in the GT thread, how do we know it wasn't something similar to this, a cell-phone gun AOW (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html)? so for all we know, it could have been a gun. add to it the stress and the threatening manner in which he presented it, and you have a justified homicide.

btw, does it look like his pants are falling down, and he's holding them up?

[Zer000]

Yeah, sitting here at my desk, it looks questionable, it looks like they should have been able to figure out that it was only a cell phone, and I wonder why it took so long for the cop to start shooting, after the guy had pointed it at them twice.

On the street? I'd have shot him too. Who knows what went thorugh the cop's minds and what they saw but them. I've got no sympathy for people who resist and get shot. Cause and effect. That guy had to know that his actions were likely to get him shot.

[geojap]

If you could see the video, he points the phone at them at least twice, early in the exchange when they are all out of the car. The cops wait to shoot him until he is walking away from them, his back completely towards the cops. They wait at least 5 seconds (a long time to wait when someone has something pointed at you that could be a gun) to unload on him after he points the phone at them. I think they shot him because he refused to stop. It was obvious they were directing him to stop and get on the ground.

But the cops did not fire when the perp raised his hand toward the cop in a threatening manner. They waited some seconds later, after the perp had walked another 10 feet from them, increasing his distance from the cops, when they fired.

Still, in my heart I feel like the damn perp got what he deserved. However, those cops were a little too trigger-happy. I don't like the idea of trigger-happy cops, as much as I don't like the idea of some lunatic endangering the public becuase he wants to take the cops on a car chase.

[Pilgrim]

Looks like a justifiable shoot to me.

Nighttime.
Failure to yield.
Uncooperative suspect attempting to leave the scene on foot, thus drawing officers out into the open.
Sudden threatening gesture with an object in his hand that could be a gun.
Reasonable fear that if the suspect is permitted to escape he could pose a threat to the public or other officers.

Nothing in the law says the officers have to wait until he turns around so they can shoot him in the front.

[WonderNine]

voilsb, the stills don't tell the story as the video does. When the cop on the right (who knew it was a cell phone in the perps hand) starts shooting the perp has had his back to them for at least two seconds.

After the cop shoots him several times the perp turns and you see the still above, then the guy turns back around again and sort of walks away and both cops start shooting again. It's really messed up.

[Chuck Dye]

My principal interest when I posted this

Good shoot/Bad shoot in Shreveport (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23035)

without comment was to see if anyone else reacted as I did without prompting.

In the first seconds of Unit 138’s tape after arriving in the parking lot we see Hudspeth in full stance. The officer on the right (Officer Right, for short) appears immediately, gun already drawn. It appears Hudspeth is aiming at the officer on the left (Officer left.) Officer Right has a view from as little as six feet of what is in Hudspeth’s hands, he has his muzzle against Hudspeth at one point so even the much bemoaned LEO marksmanship is not an issue, and Officer Right does not take the shot. Why?

If Hudspeth was a lethal threat to Officer Left while braced against the hood of the car, Officer Right should have taken the shot then and there to protect his fellow officer. If Officer Right recognized that Hudspeth had no weapon and was only posturing, it would seem to be a bad shoot. (Yes, Officer Right may have had Rule Four concerns about where his bullets went if they fully penetrated, but I truly hope he did not worry about a miss with his muzzle in contact with his target!) Either way, I think the incident should have ended before Hudspeth took his second step from the hood of the car.

Hudspeth engaged in lethally stupid behavior and his shooting does not bother me in itself. What does bother me is that the videos illustrate a training failure, and I wonder how Officer Right ranks in the trust of his fellow officers now.

[jsalcedo]

Yeah its murder.

The guy is agitated but is walking away. They had an opprotunity to take him down with non lethal methods. Looks like the cops were pumped on adrenaline and were in the fight or flight mode.

Bad shoot. These guys need not be handling guns or dealing with
folks who run from them at 30 MPH.

I don't like hopped up crackheads with their pants pulled down either. But if I shot one that was leaving my house in that manner
you wouldn't see me for a long long time.

If this shoot is justified it will be for anyone who turns their back on a cop.

[WonderNine]

As a typical Glock talker on the "Cop Talk" section would say: "The important thing is that no officers were hurt."

:barf:

[Chaz]

Whats up with all the LEO bashing? I thought this was the High Road :rolleyes:

The shooting inicident takes about 10 seconds from start to finish. We have the benifit of viewing the camera after the fact. We were not there. We did not chase the suspect. We did not know what he had in his hand. Our adrenalin was not flowing. We dont have the tunnel vision often associated with these types of encounters.

Speaking as an ex LEO, that has been in those types of situations, I would have shot him too. And I venture to say that most of you would have done the same thing had you been in the officers shoes. The video speaks for itself. All the officers see is a man who gets out of his car after a chase and points a silver object at them in a way one would hold a handgun. He is refusing to comply with there demands. He then turns toward the closest officer and threatens him with the silver object. The officer trys to push him and the object away and then backs off. At that point the other officer, perceiving a threat to his partners life, fires 2 shots wounding the suspect. The suspect then turns to walk away while still holding the silver object and still refusing to comply with the officers orders. The suspect then turns toward the officers and points said object at them in a way one would point a handgun. At that point the officers open fire and nutrilize the threat. Only then do they see its a cell phone.

Come on people, Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. We are above that.

[WonderNine]

All of this cop talk still fails to convince anyone of the reason why they waited so long to start shooting if they thought their life was in danger.

Wouldn't you have started shooting right away as you said?

[blackhawk2000]

I always hold my cell phone like this:rolleyes: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/1.jpg

Or like this: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/21.jpg


and this: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/photogalleries/policeshootingphotos/photos/22.jpg

It makes it easier to talk on it, than holding it up to your ear.

[WonderNine]

Why don't you do stills of the other 99.99% of the clip where his back is turned to the cops and they do nothing because they're quaking in their boots?

Remember cop on right starts shooting long before he even turns around (for a tenth of a second) in the bottom two stills.

This is the guy who had the gun in the perps face and his hand on the cell phone in front of the cruiser before he let him go.

[blackhawk2000]

Even if I knew it was a cell phone, as soon as he turns around, his hands are out of sight. How am I to know he didn't switch the cell for a gun? Even if I thought I knew it was a cell, and my partner started to shoot, I would think he saw something else, and then I would start shooting too.


Normal people don't point objects in the direction of the cop that just pulled them over. Normal people don't try to get away from the cop that just pulled them over. Normal people don't do these things, because they know it could get them shot.


And those who ask why they didn't start shooting right away? Most of the people on this board who carry a gun, don't want to shoot anyone. They will if forced to though. The police are the same, they don't want to shoot, and will wait as long as possible to do so.

[WonderNine]

I don't like hopped up crackheads with their pants pulled down either. But if I shot one that was leaving my house in that manner
you wouldn't see me for a long long time.

If this shoot is justified it will be for anyone who turns their back on a cop. - jsalcedo

What he said ^^^^

The cops seem to be above the law in this one.

[Chaz]

And those who ask why they didn't start shooting right away? Most of the people on this board who carry a gun, don't want to shoot anyone. They will if forced to though. The police are the same, they don't want to shoot, and will wait as long as possible to do so.


Amen, blackhawk2000!

[blackhawk2000]

Uhhh look again. Not once did the cops hands touch anything in the perps hands.

[Ivanimal]

Police aided suicide.
Too bad the idiot couldn't have done himself in by fire saving the cop a few nightmares and a state sponsored funeral.

[Archangel]

Look at the first and the third video. In the third one, at about 0:54-0:55, the officer closer to the perp (we'll call him officer 1) ducks quickly, and you can see a shell casing eject from his gun at the same time. From this angle, the perp is obscured by the officer's body at that moment.

But if you refer to the first video, you see what the perp is doing at the moment when officer 1 ducks. He is swinging around quickly, and presenting his phone, like a gun, right towards officer 1's face. Even if the officers had recognized the "weapon" as a cell phone earlier, the perp has since turned his back, hands hidden from view. He could easily have switched the phone for a real gun.

In the split second that the perp turns, officer 1 reacts immediately, ducking and firing a shot. The muzzle flash and ejected shell casing that you can see in the third video are obscured in the light from the store in this video.

Seeing this transpire from officer 2's perspective, a shot is heard, and officer 1 begins to fall (duck). Officer 2 immediately opens fire with five shots. Not an unreasonable number given that the perp hadn't started to fall down yet. Officer 1 follows up with 2 more shots. Probably unnecessary, but the adrenaline has got to be going pretty good at this point. And the perp still hasn't actually fallen down yet.

Total elapsed time between first shot and last: under 3 seconds.

Looks like a clean shoot to me.





PS. I've been lurking for a while, but this is my first actual post. Hi everybody!

[WonderNine]

blackhawk, I understand what you're saying. But you gotta admit, it just looks bad. I mean, how can you possibly tell me that the cops wanted to wait as long as possible until they had to shoot, when they were obviously in much more danger at the beginning of the video that at the end when the threat had been better identified and the guy had his back to them.

It obvious (and I'll repeat it as many times as necessary) that the cop on the right began following him and then started to shoot for no reason after the perp had been walking away from them and had his back turned.

Only then the perp turns and aims his cellphone or whatever. I'm sure you'd probably turn around too for a second if you had just taken 3 or 4 .40 slugs in the back.

[WonderNine]

Uhhh look again. Not once did the cops hands touch anything in the perps hands.

He was close enough to give him a big smooch and the cellphone was clearly visible to this guy is my point.

And this is the guy that started shooting before the perp turned around.

I don't blame the cop on the left for shooting as he clearly thought something was up or that "cop on right" had seen a gun and that's why he started shooting.

[Pilgrim]

Hudspeth engaged in lethally stupid behavior and his shooting does not bother me in itself. What does bother me is that the videos illustrate a training failure, and I wonder how Officer Right ranks in the trust of his fellow officers now.

Even with the best training and the best operational planning, everything turns to ka-ka in the first few seconds of combat.

Speaking from personal experience, when an officer is under extreme stress to make the right decision in a potentially dangerous situation, the brain is running full speed trying to comprehend everything that is going on and classify it as either threatening or non threatening. Under this stress, you will see things completely different from what they actually are as your brain takes shortcuts and hangs labels on objects that it thinks it recognizes.

One night I was confronted by a drunk who had been busting the windows and windshields out of cars and trucks. The first report was that he was shooting out the windows and windshields. When I found him, he had what I thought was a length of 3/4" galvanized pipe with a 90 degree elbow in his hand. That is what my mind saw. When he was finally arrested, the galvanized pipe and elbow on the end turned out to be a trucker's tire thumper, chrome plated, with a rounded ball end.

Another night I came home to catch a burglar cleaning out my motor home. He came right up to double arms reach with something held low at his side in his hand. I recognized it as my screwdriver handle, the kind with the changeable tips, but there was no tip in it. With a tip it would have been deadly. Without a tip it was something else. Had I not recognized it for what it was, I might have shot him.

Things happen fast in these situations. I suggest before you nitpick the officers to death, you go with your first impression on the first viewing of the film clip, and not after you have watched it 10-20 times, freezing the frames and carefully analyzing what you see.

As for a training failure in this instance, your city fathers or county supervisors would never come up with the money for the training necessary to make every police - suspect encounter run picture perfect.

[Chuck Dye]

Chaz,
If you have not checked out the stills, please do. I am of the opinion that Hudspeth should have been put on the pavement where he stood at the hood of his car. If the officer on the right managed to identify the phone as nonlethal, then it was time to wrestle. If the officer on the right could not positively identify the phone, and for all the reasons you point out he cannot be expected to, he should have shot Hudspeth at the front of the car. The purpose of defensive shooting is to neutralize the threat BEFORE it does harm. Hudspeth was ALLOWED far to many opportunities to shoot the officer on the left. Hudspeth was ALLOWED to extend the range of the shot from contact distance to a range many stressed shooters have missed from and had Hudspeth actually been armed, the results could have been tragic. These are important concepts in defensive shooting and bear pointing out. That the examples provided by the video are LEO is of political interest is secondary to the splendid lesson to be had. If the participants had all been civilians or military or other non LEO's, the lesson would have been the same and as well illustrated.

[jsalcedo]

I'll soften a bit and go with what wondernine said about the other cop on the left. He wasn't in a position to do anything other than go with the actions of the others

[CR_OPSO]

the cellphone was clearly visible to this guy is my point
maybe it was somewhat visible as Officer Right approached, but once he made contact, the cellphone wasn't stuck in his face - it was moving around and at times down along the suspect's side - it appears the officer was constantly looking at the guy's face - all within a couple seconds - difficult to positively ID it as a cellphone.

Edit to add: I also agree with Chaz - most LEO's wait too long before they shoot because they DON'T WANT TO. I sometimes lurk on one of the gun-grabber forums - and they actually think that we have guns because we DREAM of the day someone walks in our house, so we can kill them. None of us want to kill (LEO or not). I saw a training video of a traffic stop where the officer waited and waited - while the suspect slowly put his rifle together (M1?), loaded it, and aimed it - telling him to stop the whole time. Once the rifle was ready to fire, it was too late for the LEO who only had a handgun.
CR

[Carlos Cabeza]

All this dissecting of the video is giving me a headache. What I'm getting out of this is when an officer is still in a low threat mode, it would be wise to follow his/her orders and not make any sudden motions or try to evade them. In a nutshell, this guy wanted to die. Myself, I do whatever I'm asked and don't put myself in this type of situation to begin with. What we need to critique the video is all of the facts.

[WonderNine]

I'm not sure this guy wanted to die, I think he was high as a kite. He was playing cops and robbers in his own cracked out/doped up little head and tragic consequences were the result.

[Carlos Cabeza]

I hear ya 'nine , very sad, but that's chlorine in the genepool. I do think the LEO's might need to question the morality of the shoot and adjust accordingly.

[Archangel]

After reading the post-shooting notes of one of the officers (link below the videos), and watching the second video again, I have more to add.

Right after officer 2 and the perp scuffle, at about 0:58 in the second video, officer 1 fires 2 shots.

So the chain of events is like this. The perp gets out of his car, officers do likewise. Perp points his cell phone, gun like, at officer 1. Officer 1 ducks and takes cover behind his car. Officer 2 attepts to physically grab perp. Brief scuffle, perp pulls away, officer 1 fires 2 shots. Officers cease fire for a full 5 or 6 seconds and again try to approach and apprehend the perp as he walks away.

Cut to the events outlined in my previous post.



Notice, though, that if those first 2 shots hit the perp, he didn't react in the slightest. High as a kite indeed.

[Chaz]

Huck Phinn


Unfortunatly, still photos only tell a portion of the whole story. For the officer to perform what you suggested would have required him to safely stow his firearm, which was in his right hand at that portion of the incident. From the time the officer put his hands on the suspect until the suspect breaks free is about 2 seconds. There was simply no time for him to do as you suggest.

Why did the officer not simply shoot the suspect right there? There could be a number of reasons for that. He may not have seen the silver object pointed at his partner as he was trying to get control over the suspect or he may have hesitated pulling the trigger at that time, we dont know what was going through his mind at the time and the "shuda, coulda mighta's " would lead us down the road of eternal debate.

What it boils down to is this: There is no such thing as perfect training and incident handleing. Could things have been done differently? Maybe. Should things have been done differently?Perhaps. Might we have done the same thing in there shoes if we had not seen the video first? I dont know. But when I see the sarcastic comments of some based on an after the fact analysis of a small portion of the incident, I am saddened to see the quick comdemnation of the LEO's actions. The suspect was deleberate and provacative with his actions. He got what he wanted.


I got no beef with any member or thier opinion. All are entitled to it.


Respectfully,
Chaz

[cordex]

I will lose no sleep over this shoot.

Still, part of me sides with those who ask what would happen to a mere civilian who took a shot under similar conditions.
For instance, if a robber played like he had a gun and then started to walk away.

[WonderNine]

You and I both know that the law would be completely different for a civilian. And I think that's what bothers me the most about this.

[CR_OPSO]

Still, part of me sides with those who ask what would happen to a mere civilian who took a shot under similar conditions.

The main difference I see is that the police are required to apprehend the suspect - "mere civilians" are not.

Now before someone jumps on it, I'm not saying police should shoot people just to catch them (I hate how you have to qualify everything on msg boards - especially on these topics).

I can't think of a situation that would put a "civilian" in similar conditions. The civilian wouldn't be allow to persue the suspect - the police have to.
CR
(But I do agree if someone faked having a gun and you shot them, you'd have a lot of explaining to do - hopefully you'd have a video, too)

[WonderNine]

The arguement wasn't about apprehension, it was about whether or not the cops feared mortal danger. I don't believe that civilians are any less mortal than cops.

[CZ-75]

Whats up with all the LEO bashing?

Are you expecting something different when you shoot an unarmed suspect?

A pat on the back, maybe?:rolleyes:




What about the dog in Cookeville, or the 15 year old girl in San Antonio (?) driving her dad's car. Or the guy in MD shot by the FBI agent for having his cell phone in his hand.

Too many instances of negligent, sometimes criminal, behavior by LEOs to just brush off.

[CR_OPSO]

I was responding to cordex - he suggested that a civilian wouldn't be treated the same way in a similar situation - MY POINT WAS, a civilian wouldn't have to be in THAT situation.

I'm saying that's WHY they were in THAT situation - they are trying to apprehend. That's IS my arguement - I know it's not yours.

I agree we're all human, we all bleed.

If someone comes in my house and aims a cellphone at me and I shoot them, I'd be okay (at least in LA).
CR

[mephisto]

Tazer? Why don’t LEO have more non-lethal weapons? One would think that in today’s world with all the massive improvements in technology there would be a better way to subdue an idiot like this guy. I never want to shoot another person. I don’t always carry, even though I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It would be a very tough thing to do, shoot a human that is. And I would never want to be a cop. You deal with crap all the time.

[Feanaro]

I finally got the video playing on my crappy computer and there is just something wrong with this. HIS BACK WAS TURNED and they were shooting him. If they had fired while he was pointing the cell phone I would understand. But from what I could see the firing started as he was walking away. I don't see how that is justified.

They started firing their Glocks, by my count, roughly two seconds after the man turned his back on them and walked away. I can understand shooting someone waving something that looked like a gun at you... but his back was to them. And if Officer One fired two shots before then that only makes it worse. If he was gonna shoot them wouldn't he definately do so after being shot? Mistakes happen, people screw up. But it's still no excuse.

[Logistar]

As far as civilian vs police....

I *BELIEVE* that the police can shoot a felon (for example) if he is trying to run away (escape) if they believe he is considered a danger to others.

Civilians may only shoot if there is PRESENT danger. If the BG turns and runs, then there is nothing you can legally do (with a gun at least.)

Am I right about this?

Logistar

[jacketch]

My take on this one is that they shot him because he had been using his cell phone while he was driving. Sounds justifiable to me!:D

[CR_OPSO]

Logistar,
You are correct (and that's what I was trying to say earlier).
CR

[bobdobalina]

I normally don't post, just lurk.
But after seeing the three videos I have to side with the Cops on this one. The first two videos look real bad for the Cops. But watch the third video. The officer on the right does not begin shooting until he sees his partner duck. Clearly he thinks he is defending his partner from something. Imagine seeing a friend or loved one go down out of the corner of your eye after some crackhead points something in his or her direction, this is how this officer must have felt. He sees the perp turn and point something and his partner goes down, his instinct is to protect his partner and neutralize the threat FIRST, and ask questions later. How does he know in the space of like 1 second that the perp didn't turn back around to reload, pull out another gun, etc.
After the cop on the right starts shooting, the one on the left begins shooting too. I imagine what is going through his mind is that something definitely is wrong because my fellow cop is shooting, I'd better assist.

[280PLUS]

the police are hopped up from dealing with this guy, plus theyre scared and justifiably so.

add a perp acting stupid and it leads to just what happened here.

looks like a gun to me, looks like he's pointing, ready to fire,

i didnt watch the video but i say if the cops fired a little late, they must have thought for sure it was a gun and didnt want a guy who would threaten with a gun to get away.

works for me...

note for you all, comply with the police in a courteous manner and you stand little chance of the wind whistling through your body

perp got noone to blame but himself...

[P95Carry]

Many points of view here .... covering about all aspects ..... I would say that the assessment of the ''justified'' nature of the homicide could carry on ad infinitum!

I will tho just add one thing ........ it behoves ANYONE who is apprehended to do everything possible to avoid such an incident. This means .... CO-OPERATE ......... hands open and empty .... legs spread ........ even go to ground. if the guy was high on something then that was his bad ... the fact that he did not sensibly comply was his bad ...... beyond that there is much that can be called ''unfortunate''.

There are cases where people have brandished even plastic toy guns and been shot up ... simply cos they did not take things seriously if challenged. The average cop is as much in fear of death or injury as any of us ... and despite training .... will still be as he feels it ''in extremis'' ....

I'm not actually taking sides . no point ... too contentious. Only making a few of my own points.

[Erik]

If the suspect in question has the means, opportunity, and intent to cause grievous bodily harm or death to myself or another and I believe there is no lesser means of force appropriate at the time then I may shoot him. Yes, even in the back.

If the suspect in question is fleeing, but still meets the above criteria then I may shoot. Again, yes, even in the back.

I would have to believe and be able to articulate the above.

---

Assuming for a minute that a non LEO was caught on tape in an identical situation:

I this instance a non LEO would clearly be justified in shooting, up until the BG began to flee. After that a non LEO may be justified, but faces a much more difficult time successfully articulating why you did not just let the BG go. You do not, after all, have the same job description as LEOs tasked with apprehending BGs.

---

I bet that if we DID NOT know the gun was a phone, and posted the video and pictures as a thread entitled "ID the BG's pistol" that quite a few folks would post their opinion on the matter, and that next to none of them, if any, would include something along the lines of "that's a cell phone" in their guesses. But I could be wrong. Now imagine your one of the cops.

[CR_OPSO]

I did that when I first saw this thread - I showed the STILL PHOTO to a coworker and said "what's that guy doing?" The response, "Duh, shooting a gun!"
I had to point out it was a cellphone.
CR

[cordex]

CR_OPSO,
I understand the "apprehending hte fleeing felon" bit as part of a police officer's job description. I wasn't there, I can't make the same judgment calls under the same conditions as they did, but the use of deadly force to apprehend an individual - even a fleeing felon - should be the last choice, right?
I can't think of a situation that would put a "civilian" in similar conditions. The civilian wouldn't be allow to persue the suspect - the police have to.
How about this:
Family eating one evening in their back yard (it's a nice day). Wile E. Cokehead runs into the yard, whips out his cell-phone and starts waving it around like a pistol.
Joe Citizen draws down on Wile E. Cokehead and tells him to drop what's in his hand.
Wile E. Cokehead, seeing that things aren't going his way decides to walk away - unfortunately sort of in the direction that Joe Citizen's wife is.
Joe Citizen empties his pistol into Wile E. Cokehead's back.

Is the shooting justified? Or should Joe Citizen have found another way of handling the situation?

Haven't watched the videos so I'm not sure exactly how this situation went down, but I've seen two seperate arguments justifying the cops' shoot.
1. He had a cell that he was brandishing as if it were a gun. Cops felt threatened, so they shot.
2. He was running away and they had to shoot him to apprehend him.

Argument 1 makes perfect sense to me, but there are quite a few people here who have watched the video who claim that they didn't shoot while they were in immediate preceived danger. Then argument 2 seems to apply, except every description I've heard seemed to imply that he was walking away (not running, but walking) at the time the shots were fired, thus showing that the officers might have had a bit more time to deal with the situation using less-lethal methods where "less-lethal" describes just about anything not including a volley of handgun fire.

Perceived defense of a parter ... hmmm ... I could see that, I guess. I'll have to watch the videos.

Like I said, I'll lose no sleep over this shoot. The guy was begging to be shot when he called the cops out (so to speak) by pointing his phone at the cops like a gun.

[The White Flyer]

Let it be known that after watching this video, I am selling all of my pistols that look exactly like a cell phone. I think this was a bad shooting. The suspect's back was turned, non-lethal force could have been used (bean-bag shotgun?), and why wasn't he pumped full of lead when they first noticed the cell phone and believed they were in danger? Oh well, another civil rights lawsuit coming down the pike...

[Mark D]

IIRC, in WA, LEO's can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon.

I have a .wmv file that is too big to upload, that shows the disassembly, assembly, loading and firing of a 32 ACP gun that is housed in a cell phone. Each barrel is fired by pushing a button on the keypad. I'm sure a brief web search can produce a hot link to said video.

This perp presented his "cellphone" in a manner consistant with the use of a known firearm. If he had done that to me, I would have blown his noggin back over his freshly abandoned car.

Decision time... Are you going to let a perp who has established himself as a threat flee into an area (that appears to me on the videos) that is poorly lit, cluttered with obstacles, and populated by who??? Or are you going to make the call to stop him before a hostage situation, or an "at large" situation develops?

I don't have much respect for LEO's at large; too much jack booting, too frequently. However, this event looks like a pretty good call on the officers part. The perp was trying to evade capture. If he had been capped while on his knees, attempting to submit, I'd scream for LEO blood. But that wasn't the case was it?

[TheeBadOne]

Link to "cell phone gun" in use.

http://www.calibrepress.com/newsline/warningart/cellphon.mpg

[NIGHTWATCH]

Im so tired of hearing about people being shot by police who "thought maybe" they had a gun. :fire: The perp looked like scum, he did struggle at first, and yes, he played cops & robbers with a phone under the light. BUT, THE GUY WAS WALKING AWAY AND THESE COPS HAD THE CHANCE TO BEAT HIM DOWN. :fire:

WAIT! He coulda turned around and made a call!!! SHOOT HIM DOWN LIKE AN ANIMAL! FORGET THE FACT THAT HE IS PROBABLY SCARED TO DEATH AND FOR GOOD REASON, THEY SHOT HIM! :banghead:


TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS, THEIR BADGES AND THROW THE COPS IN JAIL. WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE ABOUT THEIR LIVES IF THEY HOLD LITTLE REGARD FOR THE LIVES OF OTHERS. :mad:

[Penforhire]

The declared goodness/badness of the shoot depends mostly on the location it happened. I don't miss that guy in the least. One less BG on the streets. But having said that I personally think it was a bad shoot. I've seen plenty of videos of threatened cops who restrain themselves admirably. I think these guys either had bad training or forgot it in the heat of the moment.

And yes, I do hold law enforcement to a different standard than joe public. It may indeed have been suicidal but I don't think the police should be allowed pre-emptive lethal violence. You shouldn't be arrested for a crime not yet committed and you shouldn't be killed because you didn't comply with officers or tried to escape. Most common drunks are not in their right mind and might try to escape. Of course the officer in such cases may not feel threatened by the perp. But threat assessment should not be a grey area. The officer might think it is a gun but he shouldn't shoot until he KNOWS it is a gun.

[CZ-100]

The guy was shot 8-10 times... what was he shot with? Cal weapon?:confused:

[DontShootMe]

Proof that handgun stopping power is an oxymoron.

Energy Transfer? Yeah right. He didnt even FLINCH.

One shot stop? Umm, sure.

:confused:

but... by reading other threads, it seems LEO's have some accuracy issues, so maybe the MISSED until the last shot when the guy dropped? Somehow I doubt that.

[Gundolero]

This is clearly a bad shoot and those SOB's should rot in jail for their actions. I would place them in the General Population too and see what happens when the word gets out that they were cops! Speaking based on my 9 years of law enforcement I can say that they were not justified when they finally decided to shoot.

As a police officer you must realize that you are usually going to have a slight disadvantage when facing a suspect. For those of you saying that it was a good shoot then just pray that it never happens to your son, brother etc.

The young man's actions were undoubtedly foolhardy but the police cannot shoot you for failing to comply! You must be posing a risk of serious injury or death to a person to warrant deadly force in most cases and this is not one of them.

Makes me sick to see this crap

:fire:

[Baba Louie]

Goodness.

Quite the video clip.

Suicide by COP.

Pure and simple.

High speed car chase?

Ignore LE commands?

Exit vehicle attempting to exit scene?

Brandish an object in (any) that kind of fashion?

Dead man walking.

Gene Pool thinning.

What a Maroon.

It took me longer to type the first three lines than those officers
had to recognize, act/react.

Hard job.

Stupid Clientele.

Adios

[TheeBadOne]

Link to "cell phone gun" in use.

http://www.calibrepress.com/newsline/warningart/cellphon.mpg

[gudel]

the guy was not pointing a gun at any of the cops, instead he WALKED away. the cop on the left would have been able to clearly identify a phone or a gun, since in front of that store is well lit (if not, you wont be able to see them).

this is MURDER. cop on the right side behind this guy fired multiple times! come on guys, there are three of you, and one bad guy. and you can't at least beat this guy down?

isn't that true back in the old days (in the 1800's) sheriffs don't shoot unarmed people in the back? i guess we have generation of cowards now.

you cops want to be respected and viewed favorable by your citizens? how about cleaning up the ???????s from your force, that's a start. doctors have board that can suspend a doc's license for a screw up job, that's why people are favorable to doctors than cops.

i hope they sue the hell out of that PD and fire those un-officers.

[Blackcloud6]

Well, I only have one thing to say. In my CCW class the retired police officer who was teaching told us students this: "Remember, the action that takes you a split second to decide to take will be gone over by "experts" and lawyers in detail for years."

This thread proves he is right.

[cordex]

Okay, watched the video.
Cop on the left fires first - two shots while the perp is walking slowly away presenting no active threat of either harming someone or escaping. Time the shots and watch them in different cameras.

In his place, I may have made the same decision, but it really doesn't look good.

The fatal shots (made by the cop on the right) looked good - the guy appeared to be attacking cop left.
this is MURDER. cop on the right side behind this guy fired multiple times!
Murder because of multiple shots? I think not.

[J Miller]

I looked at all the still pics.
I watched ALL THREE video clips.
I read the "opinion" of the officer reguarding the shoot.

I am not now, nor have I ever been an LEO of any kind. I am not friends with, nor an enemy of any LEO.

Looking at these clips and pics as if I were a juror in a trial, these are my observations.

The subject: Was agitated and combative, but NOT agressive to the officers. All three of the video clips showed he did not attack either of the officers, he was attempting to get away from them.
From the video cameras on the police cars I could see the object in the subjects hand was not a gun. If I could see it, surly the officers at the scene could.
The subject apeared to me to be on drugs of some kind making his reactions to the officers beligerant. He pushed away from officer R, and the raising of the hand at officer L was a get away from me motion. Not a threat of harm.

The officers: Both were angry and pumped on adrenalin. They had the opertunity to physically put the subject down, but let him slip from their grasp.
Even after being shot in the back by officer R he attempted to flee, never having attacked either of the officers.
Officer R and L fired repeatedly at the subject, from the rear, as he attempted to flee. Officer L running up behind the subject and in effect executing him with shots to the spine or head.

My conclusion. The subject was guilty of running from the police, of resisting arrest, and possibly assulting an officer. But he was not guilty of attacking either officer. He never used his cell phone as a weapon. And in all three video clips, from all three angles it was clear to me he was attempting to excape, not attack.
Both officers had oppertunites to subdue the subject, there was at least one other unit on the scene besides theirs, and another arrived within seconds after the shooting. More than enough backup to take down one unarmed man.
The subject was shot and killed for no legitamate reason other than the officers emotional state. In this case neither officer had a just reason to fire. From my perspective he was killed because the officers were so angry at his resistance to their authority, they lost control of themselves.

I stated earlier I was looking at this case as if I were a juror in a trial. Because of this evidence, I would have to find both officers guilty of murder.

It was in my opinion a VERY bad shoot. But who am I to judge? Just a citizen who may someday be sitting on a jury. Just a person who can sit and watch a video clip of a shooting and see the emotions. Thats who.

There has been a rash of police shootings of people with objects in their hands in the last several years. In every case the LEO's claimed they percieved a threat. This is becoming a pat cop-out for murder. And unfortunatly the citizens in this country have no recourse. I stated above that I am neither friend nor foe of LEO's, but in my opinion as a citizen, many police departments are allowing their officers to run on the ragged edge of mayhem.
Then when someone makes a move that is "percieved" as a threat, these emotions take hold, common sence and training go out the window, and they are killed.

I wish I knew what to do to bring this to a stop. Shootings are all to frequently necessary. But not this one.

[TheeBadOne]

http://a.abcnews.com/media/World/images/ho_gun_phone_001201_n.jpg

The entire story
http://www.socalhtcia.net/cellphonegun.asp (http://)

[CR_OPSO]

cordex,
In your senario (changing "it's a nice day" to "the lighting is the same as in the video") - if Joe thinks it's a gun and the perp is heading toward his wife, then he'd be okay to shoot IMO (at least in Louisiana) - but he'd definitely have some explaining to do and would need witness stmts (wife says she thought she was in danger).
Again - I haven't seen the video, so I'm not sure when the officers first fired or what they saw that made them shoot - so it's really not possible for me to make a call on it.
I also believe had this been a real gun (even if it was jammed/misfired), this thread wouldn't exist (regardless of where the cops bullets struck) - so (again IMO) IF they REALLY thought it was a gun, it's justified. Even if I saw the video, I doubt I could tell you what they were thinking....
CR

[voilsb]

WonderNine said:
voilsb, the stills don't tell the story as the video does. When the cop on the right (who knew it was a cell phone in the perps hand) starts shooting the perp has had his back to them for at least two seconds.thanks a bunch. like I said, I can't view the video on this computer, so I wasn't sure if I was getting the whole picture.

[AR-10]

J Miller has hit the nail, and driven it home as far as I can tell.

The videos do not leave that much to the imagination. The officers did not fire when he presented a threat to them, they fired as he was walking away. Sitting here at my computer it strikes me that they did it because he would not comply, not because they were threatened.

Obviously the penalty for non-compliance is death.

They executed him because he walked away from them. In the heat of the moment, no doubt with much adrenaline flowing, but inexcusable.

[Watchman]

Looks like Blue Suicide too me.

The guy must have had a deathwish.

Pulling a phone on a cop with a gun at nightime is pure stupidity.

Refusing to comply,assuming a firing stance and then walking away after a high speed chase is not the smart thing to do.

My prediction....

The cops will "walk" and be exonerated of any wrongdoing.

[Braz]

Gutless.

The perp's a nut. But he was murdered, imo.

[Gewehr98]

with the cellphone gun. Sure, they exist. They originated in Yugoslavia, and you could probably count the total number of them here in the United States on one hand. It's why airport security personnel force you to turn on your cellphone, and your notebook computer, when you go through their checkpoints.


As for the shooting, "Officer, I just want to make a phone call, ok?" comes to mind. The crumpling of his body after the second barrage of bullets as he was walking away reminds me of some of those Holocaust execution scenes in the ditches. :(

Even though the district attorney called it a justified shooting, the FBI and Department of Justice are going over the data. Then there's the civil rights part of the process.

[Coronach]

OK, I'm in haste, here, but a couple of things:

1. The cell phone guns exist. I can count the number in my police department's property room on one hand, maybe. But not the total number in the USA, certainly. But thats a side issue.

2. The cops fired a couple of times. Only the last time was it "in the back, walking away". And even then, not quite. The first is while Hudspeth is doing a solid imitation of the weaver stance while, apparently, asking "can you hear me now?" :scrutiny:

3. I had to look at the stills to see that it was a cell phone. And I had the pleasure of viewing the tape without knowing what the brouhaha was about. I was shocked to see that it was not a gun. There is no way an officer at the scene could have IDed it as a phone, and by the way he was holding it, there was no reason to think it might have been a phone.

4. The final shots are fired after the cops think they have a gun-armed felon walking towards a convenience store. Lessee...duty to protect others...

5. I'd have shot him, too.

Mike :scrutiny:

[NIGHTWATCH]

Yes, you are in haste. :barf:

[BLiTzNicK]

I seriously have to wonder about those of you who say the shooting was MURDER. Did you see the same videos as me?

In the video of Unit 138 Armstrong, it shows Unit 138 pulling up in front of the suspect car, in order to block him in. As the driver of Unit 185 attempts to exit the car, the suspect exits from his car and points something at the officer (obvious in Unit 170s video) while in a firing stance. It is at this point that the driver of Unit 170 attempts to grab the suspect, but draws and fires when he sees that the suspect is "aiming" at another officer. At precisely the time that Unit 170 fires, the driver of Unit 185 dives for cover, then he too opens fire.

The suspect then walks away. He then turns and points the object at Unit 185, who ducks and shoots. Unit 170 opens fire, shooting at the suspect who's back is toward Unit 170 at the begining of the firing, but angeled toward Unit 185 who is firing.

Like someone said, we KNOW that the suspect had a cell phone. The officers on the scene had no idea. Try to put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You've just chased a fleeing motorist through town, he runs a red light, and trys to cut through a parking lot, but stops because he gets cut off. He then exits the car and points something shiney and chrome, from a firing stance at another officer, within feet from you. You are not Steven Segal. You open fire. Another officer opens fire, and the suspect walks away. You drop your weapon to low ready, and walk towards the suspect, who turns his shiney chrome "piece" towards an officer whom you think he just tried to kill. That officer ducks, and fires, you return fire, until the perceived threat is neutralized. It is only after inspecting the suspect that you notice he was holding a cell phone.

Can those of you screaming MURDER be sure that the suspect was holding a cell phone while watching the video at normal speed? How much more difficult do you think the cell phone would be to identify on scene? Do you think you could have mistaken the shiney cell phone for a weapon under the light bars? Would you have waited until the suspect, who has just lead you on a chase, and is attempting to flee, while taking aim at a fellow officer, begain to fire before you engaged the suspect?

I'm sure that these officers involved feel absolutely terrible over what they have done. However, make no mistake, this man would not be dead right now if he would not have ran. In fact he would still be alive if he had stayed in the car with his hands in sight. I'd even venture so far as to say that the suspect would still be alive even after jumping from the car had he not pointed the shiney, chrome cell phone at an officer.

[Carlos]

I'm sure Officer Video No. 3 will be facing some reviews

[raz-0]

well, after finally getting to look at it, video 138 makes it look really bad for the cops. I'll call them right and left based on their positions in the 138 vid. It does NOT look like a gun. It clearly has no handle and is a funny color, and this is in crappy compression form a likely less than stellar tape, the cops could see better.

however, video 170 shows left shot a double tap by the cars first before the big barrage in front of the store. 185 confirms the shots, and I think you can see a piece of brass go by the windshield. I'm guestimating this double tap is right after right has his gun in the guys face and he pulls away, but it is a gues without sound in 138. However, from the 170 vid, it is not clear left gets a good look at what the guy has like right does. He sees a struggle, right back off with his gun in hand, and then gets covered by the guy wielding to him an unknown object. Its not clear if the double tap hit the guy or not.

officer right starts shooting right after the guy turns and covers officer left for the second time. Officer left ducks at the end of being covered. My guess is just slow reflexes, but all keyed up, I could see right thinking he saw some threat in the left hand whcih looked like it had gone into his pants.

Now I could see reading it that way, however, if you have a guy with a gun solidly pointed at someone, and his response is ducking rather than shooting, I dunno if I'd take that as a que that the ???? has hit the fan, especially when you already know he isn't being cautious about force as he already fired on the guy twice.

The third cop looks like he thinks the thing is going down badly as well. His body language say "this is not good" and not in that I'm going to die way.

Now cops have to get some leeway given the job. I don't know if I'd find them guilty of murder, but they probably need a different profession. I definitely think things got excessive at the end, but I think the lethal force bit of it was before that.

I'd want to see the audio tracks justified across all three videos, and all three videos synced up to a common time code, and which car is which clearly determined and marked in each playback. At least that much, before finding someone guilty of murder under the circumstances.

[TheeBadOne]

Nice detailed post. How many times did you watch it to draw out out those details.......
Bet it was a LOT more than once....
Real life don't work that way. The 1st take is the only take, what you see is what you get. You're looking at the tape with the expectation of seeing a cell phone so it looks like a cell phone to you. When this take is viewed by people who have no idea what it's about most think the 1st time the guy takes a firing stance he IS firing a gun.

[jmbg29]

My first disappointment lies in the fact that the police didn't empty a 12 gauge through the driver's side window at the beginning of the car chase. A car speeding out of control is a threat (of death) to the public at large. High speed chase criminals should be shot at the first opportunity.

My second disappointment is that I will probably never get to shake the hands of those officers for the great job of putting that POS six feet under.

[mrat]

"Remember, the action that takes you a split second to decide to take will be gone over by "experts" and lawyers in detail for years."

Bingo!

Whenever there is an incident such as this it makes me sick to read some of the armchair quarterbacks on gun boards.

[NIGHTWATCH]

Hey, mrat! Armchair quarterbacks? :scrutiny: The view to my computer screen and the murder I just witnessed is the same wherever I sit. :fire:

If you think that us lowely citizens have no say in the affairs of how LE conducts its business, think again. If a career in LE leads any cop to a point where he/she can nolonger distinguish between right and wrong, than its time for them to GET OUT. :mad:

The perp in this case was being confronted by rogue cops. Bullies who cared only about the fact that this guy didnt bend his knee when they told him to and not the guides regarding the use of deadly force (UFC). That he dared to walk away and not OBEY their commands. And rather than knock him down and subdue him, they killed him for it.


MURDERED BECAUSE OF WOUNDED PRIDE. BUT THATS O.K., THERE IS A GOD. :fire:


Nuff said 4 me. This thread is really starting to piss me off.

[WonderNine]

I guess I forgot to mention, the cops were exonerated and the perp died.

[blackhawk2000]

We already know it's a cell phone, because we are told it is before we even view the video. Your mind is prepped to see the phone, and will already be looking up phone images for a match in your brains memory banks.


There is no rewind in the real world. One take is all you get, and there is a reason it's called hindsight.

[Justin]

*ahem*

Just a minor note from your friendly neighborhood moderator to keep it civil, lest the thread get locked down.

[Sportcat]

NIGHTWATCH said..

The perp in this case was being confronted by rogue cops. Bullies who cared only about the fact that this guy didnt bend his knee when they told him to and not the guides regarding the use of deadly force (UFC). That he dared to walk away and not OBEY their commands. And rather than knock him down and subdue him, they killed him for it.

So now they're rogue cops??? How the hell did you interpret that from the video? Yes, this thread is pissing me off too, but only because people are making HUGE generalizations based on "facts" that are not on the video!

[WYO]

I don’t see how anyone could make an absolute “yea” or “nay” decision based soley upon watching the three videos. The camera angles do not show the officers’ respective points of view. They cannot show the officers’ perceptions as to the object in the suspect’s hands. The sound on 138’s video did not work for me. 170’s video shows what appears to be an officer firing two rounds as soon as the contact officer clears from contact with the suspect. 185’s video sounds like it has 2 or more gunshots before the guy broke away from the two officers. 185’s video is cut off where 138’s video shows the guy turning around to confront the officer on the left at the point when the second round of shots start. In any event, the videos cannot relay the subjective perceptions of the officers or their knowledge, training and experience, which are relevant factors. The video does not show a lot of things that could go into a shoot no/shoot decision, such as subtle shoulder movements that telegraph action, whether the store had people in it who were potential hostages or victims, the reason for the chase, what the officers knew about the suspect, etc.

The law does not require anyone to be correct in an absolute sense, only reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonableness includes a range of possible actions, not just a single one. Off the top of my head, I can recall civil and criminal Louisiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases on these issues, including cases where cops have shot a hostage, a guy with a toy gun, and actual and suspected perpetrators. (The test is the same for everyone, police or otherwise.) Of course, the feds get their crack at it too, but the law is generally the same, and there usually is deference given in the case of split second decisions.

Cops have it hammered into them from the first day of the police academy that their life will never be the same if they shoot someone. They know that they will be tried in the media and other forums, including the judicial forum, and that everyone will be an expert, while they can’t or shouldn’t talk except under a legally recognized privilege such as attorney-client, clergyman-penitent, doctor-patient, husband-wife, etc. There is even more awareness of this in cities or regions where the police have a higher incidence of officer involved shootings, because the press runs the stories for protracted periods. I do not know Shreveport’s experience in this regard. I haven't met a cop yet who wanted to shoot someone, and this includes the ones who have shot people.

If I had to handicap this, based upon what I surmise was probably going through these cops’ minds, I would say that the actions are supportable by applicable judicial authority, and it goes down clean. But there is no need to speculate. We’ll find out in a few years.

[CR_OPSO]

...also ticking me off with extreme EXAGGERATIONS:

NIGHTWATCH said:
Bullies who cared only about the fact that this guy didnt bend his knee

I think everyone would agree he did more than that. To say that's all he did discredits your arguement IMO.

CR

[TheeBadOne]

WYO; a well reasoned post.

[Coronach]

Well, WYO just stole quite a bit of my thunder, but I'll chime in anyway.

This guy just lead the Popo on a very dangerous car chase. He then bails out of the car, refusing to obey verbal commands, and refusing to cooperate. So, now, everyone knows that they are going to have a fight on their hands. The question becomes what kind of fight.

Is it reasonable to think that he might be armed? Hale yes. Is it also reasonable to think that he might be willing to harm a police officer or an innocent bystander? Hale yes.

Now, when he pulls out a silver object in a two-hand weaver hold and starts pointing it at a police officer, one has to ask one's self "gee...I wonder what that object might be, and why he is doing that."

Actually, no, one doesn't do ask oneself that, because one doesn't have the time.

The officer at which the "gun" was pointed ducks and (probably) draws his sidearm. The officer which is in contact with Hudspeth sees this, sees the "gun" and thinks that he has a much more serious problem than one guy out on foot, trying to elude capture.

Note: if you rewind the tape and watch the stills, you can see that it is, in fact, a cell phone. However, the officers at the scene had a fraction of a second to make this determiniation, and Hudspeth was helping complete the illusion of it being a gun by holding it in a classic shooting stance. Had he put it up to his ear, or even carried it down at his side, I would be more inclined to believe some of our more excitable forum members. But he did not, and I am not.

At this point it seems that the officers, having perceived a deadly threat, get a clear backstop and fire two shots.

At this point, I must note a side point. Unless you were looking directly at the officer/suspect combo and had a clear and unobstructed view of the firearm when the gunshots were fired, you don't know who fired at whom. All you know is that shots were fired, and this takes the scenario to a whole other level. I don't think that this figured into this shooting all that much, but it could have. From the POV of a supporting officer, if the cop fired, its bad- that means he saw a deadly threat. If the suspect fired, its even worse.

In any event, Hudspeth then continues to walk away, "gun" still in hand, towards a lighted convenience store. If its lighted, that tells the officers that there is at least one innocent person inside, and their gun-armed felon is maneuvering himself towards this person. After a brief resumption of verbal commands, Hudspeth points his "gun" again at a cop, who ducks, and Hudspeth is then shot multiple times.

The key, obviously, to all of this is how readily identifiable the object in Hudspeth's hands was as a cellphone. Having been in multiple situations like this (which did not end in gunfire, thank God), I'll tell you right now that it was not identifiable, unless you have super powers. All they can see is that the suspect has something in his hand, it is silver and he is pointing it at an officer. Add in the rest of the information the officers have about this situation (his prior actions, etc), and I'll tell you straight up that I hope that I would fire, too.

Now, lets look at a few other points. The Keyboard Commandos are screeching that he was shot for daring to walk away and not obey verbal commands. OK, lets run with that assumption. If thats the case, why are the officers ducking when the cell phone is pointed at them? They allegedly know (through their magical ninja powers) that it is not a gun, so why try to avoid it? The answer is, obviously, that they do think it is a gun, and are reacting accordingly.

Also, lets consider this. You're a Jackbooted Thug TM. You have someone pulling a Contempt of Brownshirt on you...do you:

A. Shoot him- thus enduring a blizzard of paperwork, criminal hearings, civil hearings, controversy, legal bills, time on admin leave, meetings with higher-ups, meetings with the department shrink and a full Board of Review

or

B. Just thump him Old School fashion, call your supervisor, and be done with it?

See, even if we run with the assumption that the cops on the scene are goose-stepping mouth-breathers, this doesn't make sense. And, for the record, I doubt that they are thugs. They seem to have given hudspeth every opportunity to avoid being shot or even struck, and he skillfully evaded every exit presented to him.

I'll agree with WYO, its impossible to say for certain, but I'm leaning heavily towards good shoot.

Mike

[hops]

Tough shoot for the officers. Were I on a grand jury, I'd vote for a 'clean' shoot, after taking everything that transpired in to account.

Under artifical light conditions, officers pumped on adrenalin and all other vitals at max after a car chase; Cops are human after all, not Terminator's.

I just hope that I as Joe Citizen would get the same consideration, while pumped on adrenalin in a fight or flight modus operandi. I'm only human too and my life is as important as the officer's life is.

If the officers involved are real concientious folks like many citizens are, they face enough of punishment with their demons, in this not so perfect shoot. But then most of lifes events are never perfect.

[TheeBadOne]

I think a big part of what helped the cops in this case was the dash cameras. Imagine what would have happened without them (showing the suspect assuming a firing stance with a shiny object held like a gun)....
The headlines: White Officers Shoot unarmed black man

...and the riots begin?

[jsalcedo]

If there were no dash cameras the perp would have been armed
and we would have never heard of this.

<Flame suit on>

My best friend was blind sided and cold cocked by a 6ft 8 police officer while asking for badge numbers after one "prodded" his girlfriend with a baton.

They OC sprayed him and his girlfriend and beat them bloody.

The cops didn't know they were on tape.

My friend was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

6 months of legal bills later the grand jury saw the tape, no-billed him and apologized for the states actions.

Cops are way out of control IMO and this shooting is just another example.

[Don Gwinn]

Cops are way out of control IMO and this shooting is just another example.

No offense, but it sounds like you decided that before you watched it.

[Gewehr98]

or will it?

There are definitely two camps here on this topic. They run the gamut, from armchair quarterbacks and keyboard commandos, to jackbooted thugs (to borrow stand-offish phrases). You can see the bias quite clearly from either end. Read Coronach's reply, and his profile. Where do you think he is coming from?

jsalcedo's account shows the other end. Were I a civil liberties lawyer, it would be one hell of a temptation.

I'm starting to wonder if it's a matter of stewardship, with respect to the public's tax money, but particularly of the public's trust. I learned that lesson early on in my nearly 20 years of military service - we work for the civilian populace, once everything is all said and done. With the FBI and DOJ now involved, it seems likely that stewardship is in the limelight again. I just pray that a certain blue wall of silence doesn't get in the way...

[J Miller]

After watching all the clips and looking at all the stills I made my first post.
Then later my wife came home from work and I asked her to watch the video clips.
All I told her was that it involved a police shooting.
She watched the first clip, unit 138 I think and after the perp waved the silver object in the cops face I paused the video and asked her what he had in his hand. (It was off screen at that point.)

Having no prior coaching, not having seen the stills, ( I had not even told her the perp had anything in his hand), she clearly identified the object as a cell phone. She went on to say that his hand wasn't in a gripping position that would even make it look like a gun.
I replayed the clip and stopped it at the point he holds out the phone. No way can I believe that someone just feet away would believe this was a gun or a weapon. NO WAY!

I still believe that the idiot should have obeyed the cops, but as far as I am concerned, they executed him.

And personally this thread just points out the schisim between members of the LEO community and regular citizens. The US vrs THEM attitude is strong around here.

[jsalcedo]

No, I watched it then I watched it 2 more times and then decided.

I used to want to be a cop then I ran into them professionally and found out what can happen to the human soul when exposed to that kind of environment.

[CR_OPSO]

she clearly identified the object as a cell phone. She went on to say that his hand wasn't in a gripping position that would even make it look like a gun
Whatever dude - looking at the still I can't "CLEARLY IDENTIFY it as a CELLPHONE" - I admit, looking at the stills, it doesn't look like any gun I'm familiar with - but I can't say it's a cellphone. Amazing that your wife could by watching the video (which I still can't see, maybe it was more obvious in the video) - I'm extremely impressed if that really happened.
AND - she said it wasn't in a gripping position that made it look like a gun? Okay, I think just about everyone (on both sides) agreed he was holding it in a way that made it look like a gun.
Another example of one EXTREME. But hey, that's how you see it.
And about the dreaded "us vs them" - it goes both ways - there are those on the "them" side that drive just as big a wedge as some on the "us" side.

One other comment (not really directed at anyone):
I don't think the LEO that ducked did it for the camera. To me, it looks like a reaction of someone thinking, "oh crap, I'm about to get shot". Based on that, I think it's obvious that AT LEAST he thought it was a gun.

CR

[Yohan]

Are they using .22 or 9's? Sure took a lot of shots to bring him down.

[cordex]

Are they using .22 or 9's? Sure took a lot of shots to bring him down.
No, they were just using real handguns instead of movie handguns.

[jmbg29]

she clearly identified the object as a cell phoneWow! Was she able to tell if it was a cell phone gun or not?

[mrat]

Hey, mrat! Armchair quarterbacks? The view to my computer screen and the murder I just witnessed is the same wherever I sit.

If you think that us lowely citizens have no say in the affairs of how LE conducts its business, think again. If a career in LE leads any cop to a point where he/she can nolonger distinguish between right and wrong, than its time for them to GET OUT.

The perp in this case was being confronted by rogue cops. Bullies who cared only about the fact that this guy didnt bend his knee when they told him to and not the guides regarding the use of deadly force (UFC). That he dared to walk away and not OBEY their commands. And rather than knock him down and subdue him, they killed him for it.


MURDERED BECAUSE OF WOUNDED PRIDE. BUT THATS O.K., THERE IS A GOD.

You obviously have a major problem with LEOs.

How someone can watch these crummy videos and throw out comments such as "wounded pride", "rogue cops", "murderers", etc. is beyond me. I am simply amazed that you actually believe this bonehead was shot for simply refusing to obey their commands thus wounding their pride. Do you have any idea how many times in a work week LEOs have their commands ignored?

Knock down and subdue someone who you think is armed and behaving like this idiot? Help yourself.

The hero in our story is 100% responsible for his actions and what happened to him due to his actions.

[Dash Riprock]

There is something that you have to remember about cops, most of them are complete losers who have failed at everything else they have tried. When they get a job in law enforcement, after Burger King and Taco Bell have both told them that they don’t have what it takes, they get an attitude.

Drug laws are the greatest boon for law enforcement that ever existed. The morons can actually pretend that they are doing something worthwhile, and push out their chests and talk about the evils of drugs.

The only reason that the war on drugs exists is because, in the immortal words of Governor William J LaPetomaine: “We’ve got to protect our phony baloney jobs.”

[duckfoot]

The situation could have been handled better

Maybe

Does the cop have to be responsible for every round fired?

Yes

Does said cop feel sad that he had to take a life?

Up to him

Does his family care about the dead?

Probly not up to them

Does the family of the dead hate the cop?

Probly up to them

As a cop if all you got is a hammer then all problems start look like a nail

To all Leo’s

Your job can suck sometimes

Better you than me

I would rather fight wars

Fewer rules on what to do with GB's (when in doubt shoot all GB's)

He with sin cast the first stone



All truth

You decide what to do with it


.02 taken with salt

[NIGHTWATCH]

No. I dont have a problem with LEO'S. I have a problem with cowardly cops who chase unarmed perps while shooting them down. :fire:

I take it your a cop, or strongly supportive of LE as a whole. Great. So am I . I have many friends who are cops and It sickens me that this kind of activity works more to one day harm them in the field because of the resulting hostility that follows.

These particular cops crossed the line. They turned criminal, ROGUE, the moment they shot this idiot running, knowing he had only a cell phone (had I done this, thinking he had a gun, they would throw me in jail and tossed the key). If I could make it out watching this "crummy video", Im damn sure they could standing a few feet away.

The fact that you and many others here will not acknowledge this, well, what does that say? That there is a substantial number of people who believe that it is O.K. to not hold LE accountable when they themselves act in a criminal manner. Cops are people right? Well, than these people, from what my eyes witnessed, committed a crime. The badge, the uniform, the honor was lost this night. And they should be prosecuted.

FINAL NOTE: When I stop to think about the hundreds of threads posted on TFL and here at THR regarding the fatal BATFE and FBI abuses against gunowners in this country and what we have had to endure. It disheartening that we find ourselves selective in what we see as corruption and the abuse of power. This defines hypocrisy.


RANT/OFF

[12-34hom]

Gundolero:As a police officer you must realize that you are going to have a slight disadvantage when facing a suspect

Boy; there's a pearl of wisdom if i've ever read one...

:rolleyes:

Dash Riprock: Super Size that one for me. ;) pardner.

Suicide buy cop.

12-34hom.

[280PLUS]

unless youre ready to take up the fight with the animals in this society and throw your life on the line on a daily basis you oughta stick to your regular jobs.

if you think you can do so much better, i'm sure the LEO's around here would be happy to let you have a go.

i doubt theres a bunch of police officers sitting around carefully reviewing and re-reviewing the videos of your performance at YOUR job.

the perp was a dumb*** who thought he could scare the cops away with his cellphone, it didnt work.

moral: don't try this at home, for obvious reasons.

i say they (the police) were in the right.

end of story.

don't blame the police for protecting themselves and ultimately YOU.

hows that saying go about walking a mile in another person's shoes?

sure, its easy to sit in front of your monitor and make the calls...

:fire:

[243_shooter]

I'm neither pro, or anti law enforcement. I know a large number of police officers. Like all professions they cover the whole range of personality types.

I've watched the tape(s) probably 10 times.

If you watch tape "138" when the guy spun around rapidly, if I was either officer I would have fired.

Of course they didn't have the luxury of watching it 10x's and frame by frame and sitting around 20 minutes thinking about it either.

It wouldn't have been much of a trick to grab a gun from his coat before he wheeled around. Going purely on the way he spun around and presented himself, I would have assumed it was a gun and fired.

The part that puzzles me, the officer on the right fires 5? times and the guy doesn't even seem to flinch.. Then the officer left fires 2? times and he drops.. Of course deadly force is deadly force, 30 shots or 1 dead is dead.

My lack of training / knowledge of the whole process makes my opinon pretty much a wash, as I definately fall into the arm-chair quaterback category. ;)

Perhaps cell phones should be banned just like toy guns in NYC?
:barf:

Leo

[El Tejon]

cordex, that's outstanding--"movie handguns." You are wise beyond your years, brasshopper. The force is strong in this one.

WHAT? You mean that someone used a firearm against a fellow human being and there's an aftermath??? From reading the gun nut boards on the Errornet, I thought that the officers would get an award from the Chamber of Commerce and have lunch with the mayor?

I'm going to remember this thread the next time some gun shoppe commando/Batman tells me that Problem #2 is an illusion of paranoid criminal defense lawyers who sit around and wring their hands over everything.:D

We do not have all the evidence, of course. From what I see, very defensible position for the police in both criminal and civil courts. We shall see what transpires.

[Blackcloud6]

>>The part that puzzles me, the officer on the right fires 5? times and the guy doesn't even seem to flinch.. Then the officer left fires 2? times and he drops.. Of course deadly force is deadly force, 30 shots or 1 dead is dead. <<

Not puzzeling at all. People just don't drop over dead or fly thorugh theair, or buck backwards or anything else like TV or the movies show. He started dying probably when the first round went in him and possibly through him. It takes a time for someone to expire from a gun shot. The cops don't know this, they just keep firing until he is down. I would do the same if ifelt threatened and was scared.

No mateer what your training is, you constitution, your perceived level of bravery etc. You will be scared when faced with a letahl threat... its a natural reaction.

[jmbg29]

I have a problem with cowardly cops who chase unarmed perps while shooting them down.All the more reason for the cops to have emptied a 12 gauge through the driver's side window of the missle that the scumbag was flying down the streets of that town just moments before.

A POS criminal is dead. What exactly is the downside of that again. :fire: :fire: :fire:

[Yohan]

No, they were just using real handguns instead of movie handguns.
Actually, if they were using movie guns, the cop would have dodged out of the way, pulled out an Uzi and began blasting away. Suddenly, everything would be turned to slow motion as the BG gets pumped full of bullets. Regardless, he would fall down. But just as the cop approaches, he would get up wielding his cell phone, as the 2nd back up cop (who had been reluctant to shoot him before) puts in a round to end it all. Right? :uhoh: :neener:

[Don Gwinn]

Folks, we've had long enough to discuss this. Frankly, this thread was over the line yesterday. It's way over the line now.

If you want to say that all cops are "losers who failed at everything else they did" or call the other side stupid, you have that right. But you will not do it here.

That leaves my job very clearly defined. I must either convince you not to say such stupid and bigoted things, or I must suspend your posting privileges at THR. I'm sure everyone can agree on which of those options we all prefer. Please do your part by moderating your comments.

CLOSED.