Deputy Shooting Of Military Officer Under Investigation (merged multiple threads)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally got a chance to view the video footage. VERY bad for the cop IMHO. The google video linked above, with the "analysis" by the police trainer appears to show gross unprofessionalism on the part of the shooter when prior to the shooting, the deputy says "Shut the [expletive] punk!" When the deputy fires his weapon, the pacing of the shots could indicate a ND with the first shot, followed by panic followups to "being fired apon" as another poster has suggested. The verbal abuse the deputy lays on the now injured passenger only solidifies in my mind that the shooter SHOULD NOT be a cop anymore.
but his JBT comment was way out of line and those of us in the military/LE take great offense to such trash.
Sometimes calling a LEO a JBT is unwarranted and out of line. Sometimes the boots fits to perfection. In this case, I tend toward the latter POV.
 
A mistake the MP made was: he was trying to talk to the pumped up deputy too much. The deputy interpreted his talking as disrespect and a lack of submission to his authority, which apparently got him angry.
And this is surprising(?) COPS are all about control. Can you say Law Enforcement Officer out loud. The day of the Peace Officer is dead. The day of the Enforcement Officer is alive and thriving. Enforcement demands CONTROL!

That said:
The problem is not that the cops don't need control but that many either don't know how to exercise it effectively or exercise it just because they can. One is a symptom of poor training and can be corrected. The other is pure jack booted thugism and once identified needs to be exorcised as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence indicates that the number of incidents occuring today because of it is on the rise.

I am very conflicted...

On the one hand, in any situation where the police are confronting someone who they do not know to be a law abiding citizen it is in their best interest to maintain control of the situation, for the citizen's safety and their safety. The way they go about maintaining that control and the level of violence or implied violence that they use is of course purely situational.

On the other hand, at the macro level how are society's best interests served? Whose interests should have priority - the citizen's or the LEO's? It seems that these days the LEO's safety and best interest are placed above those of the citizen. In the short run this leads to fewer dead or injured LEO's. In the long run it takes us down the short road to becoming a police state.

IMO this is fundamentally wrong. A LEO is kind of like a soldier - he signs on for a dangerous job knowing he may lose his life in it's performance. THUS the citizen should always get the benefit of the doubt - even at the cost of a LEO's life. Sound harsh? Don't want to risk losing your life in the performance of your duty - then don't be a LEO.

The cop in the video lost control - probably because he was scared after a long chase, was improperly trained to take control of this type of situation and probably lacked experience. He seemed really afraid and fear combined with adrenaline does funny things to the brain and the deputy IMO was probably a victim of both.

In the absence of quality training and experience, and given the LEO is the boss no matter what attitude so prevalent today, the scenario that occured was almost inevitable, has occured in the past and will no doubt be repeated in the future.

It - as another poster postulated - probably occurs more often than we know simply because when all is said and done it's usually the cop's word against the dead guy's.
 
Gunsnrovers said:
Watching this again on local news with commentary. Much nicer to watch it on a large TV then on a monitor.

The MP points with his hand towards the officer, announces that he is about to get up, puts BOTH hands on the road, pushes himself up, and is shot. Both hands are on the pavement when he is shot.

I could also see the hands. I think that's a key factor here. I have to wonder if this officer was even trained about the significance of watching hands and neutralizing them. He seems to have just been watching body movements.

It sounds like this Webb character has a track record but until now has dodged any punishment. He's apparently the son of a former Compton Chief of Police.
 
I'd like to add to what I wrote in POST #69 that the level of fear exhibited by the deputy is one of the things that strikes me as the deciding factor here.

The human brain is hard wired when fear takes over to respond in one of two ways: fight or flight.

In general genetics determines the response. However, the conscious mind can override the instinctive response.

IMO the deputy's instinct was flight but as a police officer his conscious mind overrode his instincts and that is a recipe for disaster no matter how you write it especially when the actor has access to lethal force. The conflict between getting the hell out of Dodge and doing his duty (if in fact he was hard wired for flight) must have been enormous. His subconcious was screaming to unass the area while his conscious was saying no - take control, stick around and handle the situation. He essentially became a cornered RAT. It's not surprising to me that what happened, happened. Maintaining control of a situation much less one's self under such circumstances is a difficult thing at best and impossible at worst.

It is possible, indeed IMO, likely that some folks, no matter how intense the desire, should never be police.

I wonder if the psychological testing a cop goes thru tests for the flight or fight response when the candidate is under severe stress? If not then why not?
 
At best the cop was trigger happy and at worse he was out to murder the guy.
I dont see this one being explained away so easily.
I think its bad for the safety of that officer to be anywhere but jail.
 
A prediciton. 1) Officer will be off the job but will not face criminal charges. 2) The young airman will rercieve at least 10 million dollars in settlement.

Stuff happens. It was not planned it just got ugly and there you have it.
 
PATH said:
A prediciton. 1) Officer will be off the job but will not face criminal charges. 2) The young airman will rercieve at least 10 million dollars in settlement.

Stuff happens. It was not planned it just got ugly and there you have it.

One more prediction - citizen with video camera will have increased interactions with local police. ;)
 
Here's a news story with part of the video shown and "analyzed by an expert" on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5211306153925066798

Yeah, that "expert" was tapdancing like hell, trying to find a way to justify the shooting.

from the video:

Announcer: When we watched the tape again with Dr. Bruce Berg, a police training expert at Cal State Long Beach, it's not clear if "get up" is everything the deputy said. Was something lost amidst the noise?

Berg: The first time we played it, it sounded like he said "get up." And when we played it again, it sounded like he could have said "don't get up"

Announcer: It's also possible the deputy, pumped with adrenaline after a pursuit, watching over two suspects, and concerned about his safety, simply miscommunicated. Instead of saying "Shut up and get down," he may have inadvertently said "Get up."

Berg: It's not clear who's the miscommunicator. If the deputy has actually misspoken, which is possible given his state of probable tension and anger and adrenaline in the circumstances. Or if he spoke correctly but is misheard.

...

Announcer:Once Carreon was shot, the deputy says something that Berg suggest is an indication the deputy felt threatened.

Berg: One could interpret that if you've just told someone "Stay Down. Stay Down. Shut Up. Stay Down." and they move to get up while you're watching the other suspect, you see out of the side of your eye somebody getting up, you're going turn and reflectively (sic), you're going to fire.

According to this (PDF), Dr. Berg is chair of the Criminal Justice Department at California State University Long Beach.

I brought up the issue of contradictory commands from LEOs a few months ago at http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163982 . Although my scenario is different than this (mulitple officers instead of one), it seems relevant now.
 
Guys,

Although nobody knows the entire story...

The subject was COMPLYING with instructions....


Not sure of how many LEO's would have told the guy to get up...seems to me that putting the subject face down while calling for back up...would have been a better alternative...

But I was not there...

BUt by the vidoe..this was a bad shoot.

Shane
 
Contradictory instructions also helped the bad guy kill that Georgia deputy a few years back, in the video that's been discussed here a number of times. I think they key is taking control with clear instructions and a calm mind. That goes for confronting someone personally, as well.

Lots to be learned from these terrible experiences, that's for sure.
 
It is possible, indeed IMO, likely that some folks, no matter how intense the desire, should never be police.
And that's a fact.

I generally don't weigh in on this sort of thing because it's never wise to judge from afar, but in this case it really does look like the subject was complying and either the officer misspoke or simply lost control. Either way - that officer shouldn't be carrying a firearm for a living.
 
Byron, I know you are a mod

and no disrespect intended. But I have to respond to post 53. Quote-

"Some of you folk who think the shot MP was somehow at fault here need to consider a few things. If you're a passenger in a car and the driver floors it, he's going to be going too fast to abandon the vehicle. What are you going to do to make him stop? I think the prosecutor's office might frown upon you shooting him to make him slow down. Besides, the car would probably go out of control, crash, and kill innocent bystanders. Turn the igniton off? Uh-uh. That would lock the steering wheel with very poor results. So exactly what should the man have done to avoid this?"

Humor me. Go out in the garage, start your vehicle's engine. Put it in gear (step on the brake, please) Now turn off the ignition. It will shut off the motor, but will not lock the steering unless you are in Park (maybe Neutral, depending on the vehicle). If it is a manual transmission, most of them will only lock in reverse. Point being, cars are made so you cannot lock the steering while in motion. Turning off the ignition is a pretty good option in this situation...except, IIRC, on newer Vettes, the key is on the left side of the steering wheel and not all that accessible to the passenger. Shift lever and e-brake, on the other hand, are right there on the console... :)

Something to think about if you hang around with the kind of person who will take you on a ride like that...
 
The passenger is marginally more culpable for the actions of the driver as the gun manufacturer is for the use of the weapons.

Both may have made questionable decisions in whom to trust, but that does not make them responsible for another's behavior.

And the guy wasn't shot(I hope) because he was in a speeding car, but because the deputy, rightly or not, feared for his immediate safety.
 
Let me say, I am also in the Air Force...

Watching the video was alot like watching someone shoot a member of my family.. That cop shot one of mine, for no good reason. :fire: :fire: :fire:

I can't believe we have folks on here saying he was justified. But then you always have to have that thin blue line..

As a side note.. when decent cops wonder why honest folks don't say hi on the street anymore.

Please watch this video.

I know most of you are not thugs... But defending those that are makes you no better..

Ask your selves this.. What if it had been Army shooting local cops????
 
AF.... Some people. You can rest assured that shooting one of you guys brings in the FBI. There will be no cover up and there will be no circling of the wagons. The Gov frowns on damaging their property. We will get the facts one way or another. All I can say is I am glad there are video cameras otherwise we would never be questioning this. I actually saw a lEO on TV complaining about citizens videotaping their actions. He said it interferes with their performance of their duties.:D
 
Humor me. Go out in the garage, start your vehicle's engine. Put it in gear (step on the brake, please) Now turn off the ignition. It will shut off the motor, but will not lock the steering unless you are in Park (maybe Neutral, depending on the vehicle). If it is a manual transmission, most of them will only lock in reverse. Point being, cars are made so you cannot lock the steering while in motion. Turning off the ignition is a pretty good option in this situation...except, IIRC, on newer Vettes, the key is on the left side of the steering wheel and not all that accessible to the passenger. Shift lever and e-brake, on the other hand, are right there on the console...

while it won't lock the steering, you WILL loose your power steering and power brakes. That's not exactly the smartest move one can make.:banghead:
 
Gunsnrovers said:
while it won't lock the steering, you WILL loose your power steering and power brakes.

If you don't have an auto transmission, turning the ignition off will only cut the power from engine to the drivewheels. Steering and brakes will still have power from the drivewhweels to assist. On an auto transmission, I have no idea at those speeds.

The steering lock usually has some interlock to prevent engagement. The problem with turning the key while moving is that muscle memory will operate the interlock.

I wouldn't recommend turning the ignition off on someone unhinged enough to make a dash from the PD.
 
molonlabe said:
All I can say is I am glad there are video cameras otherwise we would never be questioning this. I actually saw a lEO on TV complaining about citizens videotaping their actions. He said it interferes with their performance of their duties.:D


"When given a choice between privacy and accountability we always choose privacy for ourselves and accountability for everyone else. This is especially noxious when it's some all-powerful leader making the choice."

- David Brin

Like, for example, this guy:

Candid Cop Camera (6/28)
John Bell took a photograph of a Hudson, Ohio, police cruiser being towed out of mud. David Devore, the police officer whose u-turn put the car into the mud, apparently didn't appreciate the move. And Devore's cruiser camera captured the exchange. "Camera and film now. I'm not going to ask you again. I'll give you the count of three or I can make your life a living hell. You made the decision, I'll give you that choice," he told Bell. Then he took the memory card from Bell's digital camera and erased the image. Devore was suspended for one day for his action. But Bell says that isn't enough. He has sued Devore and the city claiming he was stopped without probable cause, wrongfully detained, verbally abused and deprived of his property.

The legality of video taping the police was discussed here at http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=160655
 
WvaBill said:
If you don't have an auto transmission, turning the ignition off will only cut the power from engine to the drivewheels. Steering and brakes will still have power from the drivewhweels to assist. On an auto transmission, I have no idea at those speeds.

The steering lock usually has some interlock to prevent engagement. The problem with turning the key while moving is that muscle memory will operate the interlock.

I wouldn't recommend turning the ignition off on someone unhinged enough to make a dash from the PD.

At speeds above 30 MPH power steering loss isn't much of an issue. The problem comes with a loss of both power steering and brakes because as you're fighting with the brakes to slow down, the steering is getting proportionally harder. This is compounded by the fact that most drivers under 30 have never driven a car without power-assisted controls.

I have actually had someone turn my key off while traveling approx. 50 MPH and as long as you have some room to run (preferably a long, straight road,) you'll be ok, but in urban conditions it's certainly not optimal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top