https://youtu.be/kCkWtgtHdCE
This incident is interesting for a few reasons. Firstly the guy is making a scene over a seatbelt violation, testing the patience of what is clearly an especially patient cop.
When he is eventually wrestled out of the car he gets the upper hand over the male cop, throwing him to the ground. The female (rookie) cop mistakenly draws her gun instead of her taser and fires it at the suspect, then saying "oh shit, I shot him".
Full story is in the vid description if you're interested.
She really didn't know what she was doing if she managed to pull out her gun instead of her taser. Like, they're in two different places of your body and look totally different. She probably just wasn't trained well, and her being a rookie probably factors into it too. At least the dude didn't die.
This all could've been prevented if the dude didn't try to fucking body slam the first cop tho lol
Has this guy never heard 'click it or ticket'?
On one hand, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. On the other, mixing up a gun and a taser is incredibly negligent. Can't tell who I feel more sorry for though. What a dicey situation.
Click it or get fucking shot.
Probs the one who got shot
Jesus, she was point blank and was dangerously close to shooting straight through into her partner while he was trapped underneath too.
She resigned and has charges pending, so not exactly let off at least.
Probably shouldn't have started to assault an armed police officer over a seatbelt ticket.
That's true, but still
No, resisting arrest and fighting the cops shouldn't be a death sentence unless deadly force is a factor.
Uh no.
How the fuck would you feel if you threw a punch at me and hit me. Then I drew my gun that I'm licensed to carry and shot you in the gut.
Two different forms of violence at each level. This is what you are basically advocating or trying to trivialize.
The guy should have never fought the police, and resisted arrest. The subject should be held accountable by the courts. While his actions was dangerous, it wasn't exactly deadly force.
The cop on the other hand did not shoot the guy on purpose, it was done out of negligence. It should be really hard to confuse your firearm and taser. Both feel completely different, have different weights, and ergonomically feel different. The cop acted negligently and dangerously.
Just like the subject should be treated fairly under the law, I also hope the cop is treated fairly under the law.
Considering all it can take to kill someone is one punch? I think it would be absolutely justified.
Okay grandpa.
Seems like the rookie cop made a stupid, panicked decision. Sad this all happened but I'm not shedding any tears for the guy.
goddamn i hate the fact that people can have the ability to think like this
most pds specifically use a flashlight taser stock/handle to avoid this from ever occurring.
I'm going to move the goalposts for a second - in the position that the person had the cop in (a throwdown into beating), he could have easily grabbed the officer's gun from his belt. You never know what kind of force someone is coming at you with, and what level of their intent is. Would you have thought it not okay if it was only the male officer and he had shot the suspect?
Naturally I'm arguing a completely different goalpost, but this is the point of "levels of force". Not every situation can be "why didn't he just taser him?" and not every situation can be spraying lead.
You said it yourself that "The guy should have never fought the police, and resisted arrest". Unfortunately the courts aren't there to stop them in the middle of the road beating an officer to the inch of his life. That's why police carry guns. I'm not saying that the other officer was justified in immediately blasting the guy, but I wouldn't hold it against her if the tazer was ineffective and she had to shoot him anyway.
And frankly, yes. If you come swinging at me, I will shoot you (or vice versa). I don't give a shit. You're threatening either A: my life, or B: my property, which gives me full license to render you ineffective.
Man, this guy gave him literally every chance in the book and tried his absolute best to be a reasonable human being. While it's pretty unreasonable for the first action taken to be reaching for a weapon(she could have pulled him off, for one, or used anything else other than automatically resorting to a weapon), this dude was being absolutely belligerent and uncooperative. This all literally could have been avoided had he just cooperated.
A couple of things raise some extremely high eyebrows from me though:
(The obvious one) The female officer mistook her lethal weapon for a non-lethal one on draw.
The weapon she drew was hot. Like, not even just round-chambered hot, but at some point the pistol was racked and left in that position.
It took her 2-3 seconds to actually realize she used a pistol instead of a taser.
What the fuck was going on here? It's already egregious enough to take out the wrong weapon - they're located on two different sides of your body, one feels significantly more different than the other, both have completely different arming mechanisms. It's even worse that the entire time it was armed and ready to go. Did no one fucking train this woman? Holy shit.
Shit like this makes me wonder if there are real people who are just video game characters being controlled by some 5th dimensional being
The guy who assaulted the cop did so because the person playing accidentally pressed the "resist arrest" button and the cop that shot him accidentally got the gun button mixed up with the taser button
Oh boy if you think punching someone is bad wait till you hear about getting shot
I'm telling you - it doesn't matter what could have happened in this case. The subject was unarmed, he didn't reach for the gun, could haves don't matter in this situation. The subject could have ran him over while in the car, may as well and mag dump into the car right?
In that situation, under those circumstances, based on the actions of the subject, deadly force wasn't justified. The fact that she resigned and is being charged shows that. Now it will go to trial and a jury will decide.
Also you prolly don't need to be carrying a gun if you resort to deadly force if someone tries to punch you. I mean go for it by all means if your life feels threatened go for it (I'm not gonna regulate how people should feel), but you're gonna get tied up into a legal system which isn't going to be very sympathetic to you.
One the law/court is going to have to decide (or you have to prove) that the person you shot had the ability to cause bodily harm or death. You're gonna have to prove that you shooting another person who was unarmed wasn't a disparity of force. Example - If I sucker punched you in the gut and you shot me/killed me = likely gonna be charged with manslaughter. Example - If i knocked you down and started smashing your skull into the pavement and then you shoot me = likely to be justified as I was causing grievous bodily harm.
You also have to prove opportunity which means was I attacking you at that moment or was I approaching you with a raised fist?
The finally you have to prove that I actually intended to kill you or cause bodily harm. You have to prove that your life was in jeopardy.
You can make it seem cut and dry as possible, but the reality it isn't. If all the pieces don't fall into place correctly you're looking at serious legal liability and criminal prosecution. This is why when CC/LTC holders get into shootings most of the time they automatically go to jail and get charged with manslaughter or murder until detectives can prove that the homicide was justified.
Holy shit dude, lmao. You might not be familiar with self-defence laws, but at least having a basic understanding would help your case here.
#1, Depending on the jurisdiction, attempting to run over someone with a vehicle is reason to shoot at the driver/car, because the car has become a weapon.
Since evidently you must have glossed over my post, I'll reiterate it again: I'm not saying that the other officer was justified in immediately blasting the guy. She negligently discharged her weapon, and someone was injured because of it. HOWEVER, considering the circumstances, I wouldn't hold it against her if the tazer was ineffective and she had to shoot him anyway. If you're going to assault an officer, win stupid prizes. It has been demonstrated time and time again that tazers often, can, and do fail to render a target ineffective, for various reasons. I have little doubt that she will be found guilty of aggravated battery, and will probably serve a suspended sentence or probation.
#2 I'm fairly confident that a jury would find things in my favor if I was being robbed and assaulted and I shot the person in self defence. Even my blue as hell home state of California, you have Stand your ground laws which protect you. IANAL, but in general, self defence... defences are defined with "In order to plead self-defense successfully, you must have had an honest and reasonable belief that you faced imminent harm and needed to use force to defend yourself. 13 It does not matter whether that belief was correct or not, as long as it was reasonable. "(Sourced from the same source before, a Law firm).
Finally, 8 times out of 10, people are not immediately arrested after a self defence shooting unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that the shooting was not in legitimate self defence. Yes, there will be an investigation. Yes, you will have to surrender your weapon as evidence. Yes, you will probably be asked questions, which you should have a lawyer present for.
I'm not here to argue with you about what happens in the court/jury deliberation room. It's a pointless argument filled with whataboutisms and could have's (something you ironically chastised me for). I'm also not going to continue an argument where you change the goalposts by saying "was I attacking you at that moment or was I approaching you with a raised fist?".
This entire argument is a pointless circle of theoreticals, what ifs, and could happen's. The legal system is a mess, especially officer involved shootings, and it's best left to the professionals (lawyers). Neither of which I think we are, because lawyers don't waste their time arguing on an internet forum on a Tuesday night.
The only one changing goal posts was you dude.
I'm pretty familiar with self-defense laws, you know, seeing as I had to take the class on it to get my CHL. Sure laws vary state to state, but the principle is about the same.
I chastised you because you said
And frankly, yes. If you come swinging at me (or vice versa), I will shoot you (or at the least brandish my weapon). I don't give a shit. You're threatening either A: my life, or B: my property, which gives me full license to render you ineffective.
What I bolded simply implies you're willing to shoot someone who is unarmed. Which is also why you are okay with what happened in the event in question. The reason you're okay with an unarmed person being shot in this case is because you likely feel that could have been you in that situation. We can get into all kinds of variables as to shoot/not-shoot, I'm taking your post at face value with what you said. You said you are willing to shoot someone who is unarmed and you don't give a shit.
I get it, some people should be cops, and some people shouldn't have licenses to carry.
Also random question? Did you buy chance buy a T-shirt off of facebook that says "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" with guns stenciled on it?
I think you're terribly underestimating the danger an "unarmed" person can pose within hand-to-hand distance.
Not really underestimating it. I'm not saying someone cannot be dangerous, I'm just making the point that it takes a real coward to shoot a unarmed dude for swimply swinging a fist or even giving the connotation that a fight is gonna happen.
Yeah unarmed people can be dangerous and it depends on the situation. Maybe I view it differently because I worked in Law Enforcement and have done Security, I know what it is like to deal with violent criminals and combative subjects. If I shoot my gun every time I became concerned or thought a situation was gonna go south I would have had a high body count.
There are plenty of options to utilize before engaging in deadly force and I also think is it worth killing someone over. I think guns give people way to much confidence and often escalate problems because people tend to fall back on the ideal "if shit goes bad I can just use my gun."
If you shoot someone you better hope that your force was justified. If not, you just lost your freedom and liberty. That isn't something to take lightly or trivialize.
And one thing that lolcats is right is we're off topic and no sense in going into any more.
no cop in the world carries a weapon that isn't ready to fire.
The woman was controlled by the 5th dimensional equivalent of DSP, who proceeded to claim that he actually pressed the right button but "the stupid game glitched".
This seems like an awful situation. Terrible mistakes on part of all people involved, the cop was condescending and was not attempting to de-escalate the situation, the man physically assaulting a police officer (putting himself in a position where a police officer can rightfully end him in self defense), and the rookie cop pulled her gun instead of the taser in a moment of panic, endangering her partner and the perp. It was the right decision for her to resign her post.
Given the way the fight was unfolding, even if this shooting wasn't an accident, that man put himself in a situation where he could have easily been gunned down. He slugged a cop twice in the head and threw him to the ground, attempting to beat his head even more. In that moment he could have gone for the officer's gun, or simply beaten him to death, especially if he didn't have backup. I don't think she'd be entirely unjustified in shooting him, you have no right to physically beat a police officer during a traffic stop.
Can't really feel bad for the guy given his apparent history of playing stupid games
"Court records show that Lewis had a history of repeat citations for traffic violations, including driving without a license.
He had outstanding warrants in two separate traffic cases at the time of Tuesday’s incident.
A bench warrant was ordered in January of this year after Lewis failed to appear at a December hearing in a Douglas County traffic case, District Court records show. The case was initially filed in July 2017, and Lewis had twice requested and was granted several more months to get his driver’s license reinstated, get insurance and get his vehicle registered, according to documents in the case.
The other bench warrant was ordered in November 2017 in Johnson County District Court after Lewis failed to appear for court in a traffic case there, according to court records. In that case, he allegedly had a registration violation and had his license suspended.
In addition to several other resolved traffic cases in the area, Lewis has one recent felony conviction in Douglas County.
He was charged with aggravated battery for allegedly hitting a man with a baseball bat in January 2016. The incident occurred as his apartment building was being evacuated due to a fire, and police told the Journal-World at the time that Lewis believed the man he hit was somehow responsible for starting the fire.
Lewis, after pleading no contest, was convicted and sentenced to probation, according to court records. Under terms of his probation, he was ordered to complete anger management and a cognitive thinking program, which he did, and his probation expired in August 2017."
Driver shot by police is a Lawrence resident and father of 6, st..
Looks like that anger management course didn't stick
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
