Here’s a recent police shooting that isn’t getting a lot of publicity but is much closer to the false narrative that cops shoot first and create facts to answer questions later.
The individual matched the description of a subject who was reported by numerous motorists as dropping large rocks off a highway overpass at oncoming traffic. The individual was encountered by the officer a few blocks away walking away from the overpass. The officer initially keeps the encounter consensual since it isn’t reasonable to detain him based merely on the report and the description match. However, the subject commits a citable traffic violation by jaywalking and so at that point the officer asks for ID to effect that investigation. The subject has legal duty to stop at that point and identify themself but need not produce government issued identification.
At that point a confrontation begins that ends with a fatal shooting. I’ll leave it to you to decide if it’s justified. Just within the bounds of the video, it looks like it is justified. But it’s more nuanced than that. Even to the back the blue crowd. Remember, anybody with any training knows that Floyd was the victim of police misconduct. I don’t know a single cop, and I know well over a hundred, who has defended that case. That one was obvious. The Bryant shooting is obvious. This one is tougher.
There’s some negative training here. A term used when you know you shouldn’t allow events to create a bad situation but your training allows that dirty habit to occur. He never should have gotten that close while the guy has an unknown object in his hand (which is quickly revealed to be a spring knife). The surprise of the weapons display probably led to the violent reaction due to close distance and probably the instant response to use lethal force. a little more distance and he wouldn’t be in reasonable fear of his safety and would not need to shoot. The fish eye effect of the body cam doesn’t allow you to get a grip on how close they are. You’ll see on the second shot from the traffic cam that they are arms length apart when the knife is brandished.
It was likely justified on the departments use of force spectrum, but it’s also not something you want to do. There’s some indicators both parties were preparing for violent confrontation. The guy gets the knife in his hand when he sees the cop and the rocks over the over pass was likely a ruse to bring them to the area. The cop calls for assistance before even engaging with the subject. Though that may be required under his departments rules because the subject is fleeing and disregarding commands.
It certainly doesn’t help that this guy is working pending the results of an investigation into his use of force in another incident pursuing a fleeing felon. (He was hit by the officers car then shot but he survived).
I’ll warn you it’s both graphic and a little less sterile than some other shooting videos. Particularly as he bleeds out while traffic passes by inches away from him.
The individual matched the description of a subject who was reported by numerous motorists as dropping large rocks off a highway overpass at oncoming traffic. The individual was encountered by the officer a few blocks away walking away from the overpass. The officer initially keeps the encounter consensual since it isn’t reasonable to detain him based merely on the report and the description match. However, the subject commits a citable traffic violation by jaywalking and so at that point the officer asks for ID to effect that investigation. The subject has legal duty to stop at that point and identify themself but need not produce government issued identification.
At that point a confrontation begins that ends with a fatal shooting. I’ll leave it to you to decide if it’s justified. Just within the bounds of the video, it looks like it is justified. But it’s more nuanced than that. Even to the back the blue crowd. Remember, anybody with any training knows that Floyd was the victim of police misconduct. I don’t know a single cop, and I know well over a hundred, who has defended that case. That one was obvious. The Bryant shooting is obvious. This one is tougher.
There’s some negative training here. A term used when you know you shouldn’t allow events to create a bad situation but your training allows that dirty habit to occur. He never should have gotten that close while the guy has an unknown object in his hand (which is quickly revealed to be a spring knife). The surprise of the weapons display probably led to the violent reaction due to close distance and probably the instant response to use lethal force. a little more distance and he wouldn’t be in reasonable fear of his safety and would not need to shoot. The fish eye effect of the body cam doesn’t allow you to get a grip on how close they are. You’ll see on the second shot from the traffic cam that they are arms length apart when the knife is brandished.
It was likely justified on the departments use of force spectrum, but it’s also not something you want to do. There’s some indicators both parties were preparing for violent confrontation. The guy gets the knife in his hand when he sees the cop and the rocks over the over pass was likely a ruse to bring them to the area. The cop calls for assistance before even engaging with the subject. Though that may be required under his departments rules because the subject is fleeing and disregarding commands.
It certainly doesn’t help that this guy is working pending the results of an investigation into his use of force in another incident pursuing a fleeing felon. (He was hit by the officers car then shot but he survived).
I’ll warn you it’s both graphic and a little less sterile than some other shooting videos. Particularly as he bleeds out while traffic passes by inches away from him.
Last edited:
