WonderNine
member
What he said ^^^^
The cops seem to be above the law in this one.
Cops shoot guy walking away in the back after pointing a cell phone at them.
- Thread starter WonderNine
- Start date
- Status
What he said ^^^^
The cops seem to be above the law in this one.
Chaz
Member
Amen, blackhawk2000!
blackhawk2000
member
Uhhh look again. Not once did the cops hands touch anything in the perps hands.
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!
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
member
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.
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
member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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
member
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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
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
WonderNine
member
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.
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
member
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.
Are you expecting something different when you shoot an unarmed suspect?
A pat on the back, maybe?
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.
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
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
L
Logistar
Guest
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
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
- Status