Fresno Police shooting and killing unarmed Dylan Noble

[NAC4EV]

WARNING. UPSETTING. FULL: Fresno PD RAW body cam video of Dylan Noble being shot by cops


The fatal police shooting of an unarmed 19-year-old California man could be seen in new body camera video released Wednesday.

Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer has said Dylan Noble did not follow orders and reached quickly into his waistband twice when approached by two veteran officers responding to a report of a man carrying a rifle June 25.

Noble’s family has filed a claim against the city. Their attorney, Stuart Chandler, said in a statement to KSEE-TV that the police body camera video and his talks with experts make him “more certain than ever that the shooting death of Dylan Noble was the result of an inexcusable use of excessive force.”

The Fresno Police Department released body camera footage from the two officers Wednesday showing the traffic stop that escalated into a shooting at a Chevron gas station. Dyer told reporters the officers said 30 different commands that Noble didn't obey after they pulled him over.

"Get your f-----g a-- on the ground!" one officer could be heard yelling at Noble in the footage. The officers shouted at him to show them both his hands. "If you come forward, you're gonna get shot, man!"

"I f-----g hate my life," Noble said as he walked toward the two officers with his left hand raised and his right hand behind his back. The officers then shot him twice and he fell down.

The officers could be seen shooting Noble two more times while lying on the ground in a bystander’s video of the incident that surfaced last week. Noble’s mother said in a filing with the city that they hit him twice before he went to the ground then fired two more shots on him with him bleeding on the ground, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"You will see in the video that Mr. Noble continued moving his hands while on the ground," Dyer said. He acknowledged the video will "raise questions" about whether the last two shots fired were justified.

"I want members of the community to know that I will be looking at every round fired individually to look at whether it was fired according to law and policy," Dyer said.

Noble rolled over from his back on the ground as the officers kept asking him to see his hands, according to the newly released footage.

"Get your hands up! We cannot see his hands!" one of the officers said just before a third shot was fired.

"Dude, get your hands up," the officer said. "Dude, if you reach one more time, you will get shot again." Noble was hit again moments later.

Dyer has not released the names of the officers, whom are now on administrative leave and have a collective 37 years of police experience. He has asked the FBI to oversee the department's internal investigation into the shooting.

 

[Puffnstuff]

You're video link doesn't work so here's a link to the story on CNN which has a working video feed of it. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/us/fresno-dylan-noble-shooting-video/index.html

I just watched it and the cops didn't need to put the last two rounds into him as he was already incapacitated on the ground from the first two. It will be interesting to see where this goes and police need to be held accountable for their actions, especially when they deploy deadly force against a person.

 

[dainthomas]

This is getting ridiculous. Anyone who walks toward the cops with his hand behind his back disobeying orders to get down will get shot.

 

[dank69]

This is getting ridiculous. Anyone who walks toward the cops with his hand behind his back disobeying orders to get down will get shot.

Yup, and anyone laying on the ground dying in a pool of their own blood that doesn't listen to orders will get shot some more.

EDIT: And a bill for cleaning the officers' underwear will be sent to surviving family members.

 

[dainthomas]

Admittedly would have been better if they finished him in one shot.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[umbrella39]

The events of today make me wonder just HOW the show COPS has made in on the air for so long... I guess the best way to curb these shootings is to have a camera crew follow this bad LEO's around to keep tabs on them. RIP... Also wonders why is the LEO trying to obscure the camera with his left hand?

 

[Subyman]

Why can't we make it policy to where you have to see a gun for them to shoot?

 

[JSt0rm]

This is getting ridiculous. Anyone who walks toward the cops with his hand behind his back disobeying orders to get down will get shot.

As it should be in the land of the free.

 

[blankslate]

I always make sure my hands are visible to any LEO who talks to me and that they are open with my fingers spread.

I also have someone help me check my vehicle lights at least once a month.

I've been lucky with that so far.


_______________

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The events of today make me wonder just HOW the show COPS has made in on the air for so long... I guess the best way to curb these shootings is to have a camera crew follow this bad LEO's around to keep tabs on them. RIP... Also wonders why is the LEO trying to obscure the camera with his left hand?

He wasn't. It's a shoulder mounted camera and his arm being raised pushed it up and behind his ear.

 

[child of wonder]

Why can't we make it policy to where you have to see a gun for them to shoot?

If someone is holding you hostage with a gun in your back do you want the police to only use deadly force if they see the gun? Or would you rather they assume there is a gun?

 

[NAC4EV]

You're video link doesn't work so here's a link to the story on CNN which has a working video feed of it. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/us/fresno-dylan-noble-shooting-video/index.html

Thanks.... I repaired my posted.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why can't we make it policy to where you have to see a gun for them to shoot?

It's called reaction time. You not only ask them to wait to see an object, but to identify it first? That's asking for dead cops.

 

[glenn1]

Why can't we make it policy to where you have to see a gun for them to shoot?

Because someone intent on hurting a cop could still do so with weapons other than a firearm. A knife will kill you just as dead. Plus if the cop needs to wait until they actually see the weapon and react it might already be used to kill someone, perhaps even an innocent bystander.

That being said we probably need to tighten up the standards for what constitutes "objectively reasonable" fear that opens police to use force. And it's hard because no two situations are ever going to be the same and we don't want to always use 20/20 hindsight to make the determination. Yet IMHO there needs to be something more rigorous than what we're using now, although I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what that 'something' should be.

 

[Jaskalas]

Did anyone questioning this actually watch the video?
He was acting in a way to get suicide by cop.
It was a good shoot.

 

[NAC4EV]

Did anyone questioning this actually watch the video?
He was acting in a way to get suicide by cop.
It was a good shoot.

So is this another good shoot??? CAUTION VERY GRAPHIC.

 

[Subyman]

If someone is holding you hostage with a gun in your back do you want the police to only use deadly force if they see the gun? Or would you rather they assume there is a gun?

You need to step away from Hollywood lol. A hostage situation is no where near what happened here.

It's called reaction time. You not only ask them to wait to see an object, but to identify it first? That's asking for dead cops.

The cop already has their guns on the person. They are ready to fire. At least wait to be reasonable certain they actually have anything. God forbid we require the cops to make sure there is cause to shoot before killing people. Killing people

Because someone intent on hurting a cop could still do so with weapons other than a firearm. A knife will kill you just as dead. Plus if the cop needs to wait until they actually see the weapon and react it might already be used to kill someone, perhaps even an innocent bystander.

That being said we probably need to tighten up the standards for what constitutes "objectively reasonable" fear that opens police to use force. And it's hard because no two situations are ever going to be the same and we don't want to always use 20/20 hindsight to make the determination. Yet IMHO there needs to be something more rigorous than what we're using now, although I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what that 'something' should be.

I'm not seeing anything here as to why a cop doesn't need to wait to be reasonably certain a person has a weapon before killing them. Not obeying orders or having a hand in the pocket shouldn't constitute instant death.

 

[Subyman]

Curious to see when LK will come in here and say the dude smoked weed so he deserved it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why can't we develop a non lethal capability that guarantees to incapacitate the suspect.

The video is disturbing on many levels. The cops gave him ample warnings, his behavior was erratic and he was clearly concealing something. However I can still think of scenarios where even with all of those factors present, the officer should not presume a threat that immediately constitutes a lethal response.

I try to put myself in the cop's position. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt could get me killed, but I should have an alternative to lethal force for diffusing such situations.

 

[NAC4EV]

The video is disturbing on many levels. The cops gave him ample warnings, his behavior was erratic and he was clearly concealing something. However I can still think of scenarios where even with all of those factors present, the officer should not presume a threat that immediately constitutes a lethal response.

He had nothing in his hands.
The police had options to use tasers or a dog.

 

[Paladin3]

Why can't we develop a non lethal capability that guarantees to incapacitate the suspect.

The video is disturbing on many levels. The cops gave him ample warnings, his behavior was erratic and he was clearly concealing something. However I can still think of scenarios where even with all of those factors present, the officer should not presume a threat that immediately constitutes a lethal response.

I try to put myself in the cop's position. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt could get me killed, but I should have an alternative to lethal force for diffusing such situations.

Unfortunately, there is no non-lethal tool that stops a person as instantly and reliably as a gun. Expecting cops to use a tool that *might* stop a potential attacker who is ignoring orders to show their hands and stop moving forward is asking them to gamble with their lives and safety. No sane individual is going to do this or expect cops to do so.

This was a no-win situation. The guy refused orders to show his hands and to stop moving forward towards the officers. The cops advised that they would shoot if he didn't stop. The suspect gave the cops two choices: either shoot the guy or gamble with their lives and safety that he had no weapon.

The decision is a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. No non-compliant suspect's life is as valuable to me as the life and safety of a cop doing his job. <--I know that's a hard concept to accept, but the world isn't a fair place. Wishing it was and putting nonsensical restrictions on cops use of force is just our naivete showing.

All that said, the only debate here should be whether the cops reasonably felt the guy on the ground was still concealing his hands and moving enough to be a threat that required the second shots. Traditional defensive training is that once deadly force is necessary to fire until the threat has stopped. Did they violate that? I'll let the courts decide.

But, please, stop asking that *something* be done to keep these kinds of incidents from happening unless you have a real answer that doesn't require cops gamble with their lives and safety. I'm sure you wouldn't do it, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in a world without law enforcement.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But, please, stop asking that *something* be done to keep these kinds of incidents from happening unless you have a real answer that doesn't require cops gamble with their lives and safety. I'm sure you wouldn't do it, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in a world without law enforcement.

Investment in non lethal technologies or capabilities that have the same stopping power as a bullet would be a good place to start.

 

[sunzt]

Why did he still need to be shot while on the floor bleeding out?

 

[JSt0rm]

Why did he still need to be shot while on the floor bleeding out?

Dead men tell no tales.

 

[Subyman]

Why did he still need to be shot while on the floor bleeding out?

He didn't comply. Seems to not matter if the cop was in danger or not or if a weapon is even present. All that matters is that the cop feels that they can kill someone. Comply or die. Submit or have summary judgement on the streets.