Cops shoot guy walking away in the back after pointing a cell phone at them.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
TheeBadOne, you must be trying to make a point somewhere...

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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
...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
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top