• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting interaction with police w/ body cam. Suspect is killed

Body-cams cost the department $100 a piece, a small price to pay for indisputable court-admissible evidence. Bravo to the officer for activating the camera and to authorities for immediately providing the video. In another Utah lethal police shooting case, recent security video is still being withheld from Darrien Hunt's family, egregious especially considering the investigation has completed.

I hope authorities use such footage to refine their techniques and weed out undesirable officers, similar to how NFL coaches examine game film. Police departments need to stop fighting progress and make it work for them.

I won't question the officer's decision to use lethal force for assault with a deadly plastic snow shovel, let investigators or a judge decide. For me personally, I would have placed both my taser and gun at the ready. I would also have maintained a greater distance and been more patient with a clearly troubled man.
 
railer said:
Why is that? White people get shot all the time, and no one cares. No need at all for a camera in this case.
Click to expand...

Why even comment if you are just going to be a troll?

It's a good thing he was wearing a body camera because he was 1 of 2 people shot by police that day and because of the recent controversy involving Darrien Hunt in Utah.

And general speaking anytime a person is killed it would be best if there was a video record of it to simplify the investigation process.
 
Interesting vid and these cameras are fantastic.

Without the camera many would just not believe a guy with a shovel would attack a cop. But he clearly did although I cannot quite see who touched who first, but absolutely the guy was being completely unreasonable and responsible for its escalation.
I would also have maintained a greater distance and been more patient with a clearly troubled man.
Click to expand...
Agree. Let's say this cop did not have a gun. I think he could have done a better job here. Although he isn't responsible for the escalation, he could probably have calmed if he had tried. We'll never know for sure, but doubtful the other guy would have beat him to death.
 
Cop could have handled it better.... but in the end a crazy yelling person was threatening the cops life.... and the crazy guy lost his life.

Nothing else to see here. if taxpayers want to foot the bill some more non lethal weaponry then that is up to that municipality. Dont know enough about tasers to know if it would have went through the jacket.
 
I'm surprised the cop let him pick up the shovel while he was questioning him... I'm not a cop but I would have told him to put that shovel down.
 
So was the guy legally required to identify himself? Or his business information like the officer requested?
 
The alleged suspect hadn't committed any crime, unless you consider soliciting from door-to-door and looking through car windows a crime. Therefore the officer had no right to demand any identification or stop this gentleman.

The 911 caller especially should be ashamed for not being able to identify her own neighbor. I feel bad for officers needing to vet calls from fools abusing 911.

According to some speculation, the suspect suffered a traumatic brain injury during a surfing accident, which possibly could have sparked abhorrent behavior.
 
bradley said:
The alleged suspect hadn't committed any crime, unless you consider soliciting from door-to-door and looking through car windows a crime. Therefore the officer had no right to demand any identification or stop this gentleman.

The 911 caller especially should be ashamed for not being able to identify her own neighbor. I feel bad for officers needing to vet calls from fools abusing 911.

According to some speculation, the suspect suffered a traumatic brain injury during a surfing accident, which possibly could have sparked abhorrent behavior.
Click to expand...

That's all great information AFTER the fact for which the officer involved had ZERO awareness of when he went to investigate that call.
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
That's all great information AFTER the fact for which the officer involved had ZERO awareness of when he went to investigate that call.
Click to expand...

The information is irrelevant as to whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. A hunch based on a single 911 call isn't good enough to question or detain a suspect.

Again, the officer never maintained a proper tactical distance and instead positioned himself precariously near flowerpots at the step's edge. He also unnecessarily escalated a fairly routine situation. Obviously once the suspect committed assault, the officer in that struggle had a right to self-defense and/or lethal force.
 
Seems like a good shoot to me. Seriously, officer was calm and doing his job and was assaulted several times. He has a weapon as well. Glad we had a body cam showing that this asshole got exactly what he was asking for.
 
Ever wonder why it is that crime caught on tape, even if it's blurry at times is good enough for everyone to say...yeah it's real or it's convictable in court but catch something strange on video like a UFO or Sasquatch and it's not good enough to waste bandwidth on or everyone says Fake!!. It's like why can't a crime video be faked? Maybe I could edit myself into a crime and I'd be convicted like a shot lol.....Just an amusing observation about video
 
Blanky said:
of course it is. A cop can question based on a 911 call absolutely and always have and will.
Click to expand...

Correct. In a police state, officers are free to do whatever they choose. However the supreme law of the land states otherwise.

A 911 dispatch is merely an invitation for closer examination. At the scene: can the officer articulate any punishable crimes committed by the specific individual? Is a shovel a weapon or even an unusual item in the winter?

Read up on Terry v. Ohio and U.S. v. Hensley. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. A hunch or even distrust doesn't give an officer the right to stop or detain anyone. Facts obtained in such an improper stop are also inadmissable in courts and could even result in case dismissal.
 
So if the poljce department was willing to release the video tape when it clearly demonstrate thei innocence, what does it mean when they refuse to release it in othwr ccases
 
bradley said:
Correct. In a police state, officers are free to do whatever they choose. However the supreme law of the land states otherwise.

A 911 dispatch is merely an invitation for closer examination. At the scene: can the officer articulate any punishable crimes committed by the specific individual? Is a shovel a weapon or even an unusual item in the winter?

Read up on Terry v. Ohio and U.S. v. Hensley. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. A hunch or even distrust doesn't give an officer the right to stop or detain anyone. Facts obtained in such an improper stop are also inadmissable in courts and could even result in case dismissal.
Click to expand...

In this case, the cop did have reasonable suspicion. A call(s) were made about someone in the area that seemed suspicious. The cop goes up to the guy, asks him what he is doing, and asked for ID. A cop can ask anyone for ID, but depending on the situation, a person can decline. The suspect in this case, over reacted and acted very angry toward the officer. The suspect then put his finger in the cops face. That seems safe enough, but in that range, a fist can be thrown very quickly before even a trained fighter could react.

If you had someone that angry that close to you with their hand in your face and a shovel in the other hand, are you going to assume you are safe? It would be impossible to react to anything at that close of a range, weapon or not.

I would guess that the reason the cop reached out was not to push, but to make the guy put his hands down so the cop did not get hit.

I am all for police accountability, but I dont see anything wrong with what the officer did.
 
bradley said:
Correct. In a police state, officers are free to do whatever they choose. However the supreme law of the land states otherwise.

A 911 dispatch is merely an invitation for closer examination. At the scene: can the officer articulate any punishable crimes committed by the specific individual? Is a shovel a weapon or even an unusual item in the winter?

Read up on Terry v. Ohio and U.S. v. Hensley. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. A hunch or even distrust doesn't give an officer the right to stop or detain anyone. Facts obtained in such an improper stop are also inadmissable in courts and could even result in case dismissal.
Click to expand...

You should watch the whole video on YouTube. The guy changed his story from offering snow removal, then when it's pointed out to him there is no snow to be removed he changes his story to looking for work in the future. That, with the fact that neighbors were calling the day before that he was looking in car windows is all the reasonable suspicion you need to detain this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fScdMQywzX4
 
realibrad said:
In this case, the cop did have reasonable suspicion. A call(s) were made about someone in the area that seemed suspicious. The cop goes up to the guy, asks him what he is doing, and asked for ID. A cop can ask anyone for ID, but depending on the situation, a person can decline. The suspect in this case, over reacted and acted very angry toward the officer. The suspect then put his finger in the cops face. That seems safe enough, but in that range, a fist can be thrown very quickly before even a trained fighter could react.

If you had someone that angry that close to you with their hand in your face and a shovel in the other hand, are you going to assume you are safe? It would be impossible to react to anything at that close of a range, weapon or not.

I would guess that the reason the cop reached out was not to push, but to make the guy put his hands down so the cop did not get hit.

I am all for police accountability, but I dont see anything wrong with what the officer did.
Click to expand...

What you are stating is justification for the NSA to disregard the 4th Amendment, which prohibits violations of privacy/person from unreasonable infringement.

Again, a hunch or even distrust doesn't give an officer the right to stop or detain anyone. Someone being suspicious isn't a reasonable suspicion it's a hunch or intuition. The 911 caller would need to articulate a single specific punishable crime being committed by this individual.

What would this officer be able to articulate in order to even get an arrest warrant? The suspect merely needed to ask to leave and the officer couldn't have said no or detained this gentleman. Always know your rights.
 
How should officers approach arrest?

The Officer stared to place his hands on the guy before stating an arrest was occurring... before ordering him to surrender, put the shovel down, etc. I imagine this can be handled with more care, with potentially a better outcome than sparking a violent scenario.

  • Are officers allowed to be completely free with their hands on people before arresting?
  • Shouldn't they state they're placing you under arrest, order you to put down items and turn around, before approaching and making contact?
I understand the shovel guy was explosive and violent and I fully blame him for his actions, but could guys like that be handled better?
 
Jaskalas said:
How should officers approach arrest?

The Officer stared to place his hands on the guy before stating an arrest was occurring... before ordering him to surrender, put the shovel down, etc. I imagine this can be handled with more care, with potentially a better outcome than sparking a violent scenario.

  • Are officers allowed to be completely free with their hands on people before arresting?
  • Shouldn't they state they're placing you under arrest, order you to put down items and turn around, before approaching and making contact?
I understand the shovel guy was explosive and violent and I fully blame him for his actions, but could guys like that be handled better?
Click to expand...

I probably would have waited for the backup that he asked for to arrive.
 
bradley said:
Correct. In a police state, officers are free to do whatever they choose. However the supreme law of the land states otherwise.

A 911 dispatch is merely an invitation for closer examination. At the scene: can the officer articulate any punishable crimes committed by the specific individual? Is a shovel a weapon or even an unusual item in the winter?

Read up on Terry v. Ohio and U.S. v. Hensley. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. A hunch or even distrust doesn't give an officer the right to stop or detain anyone. Facts obtained in such an improper stop are also inadmissable in courts and could even result in case dismissal.
Click to expand...
This guy was not detained. He was not cited for any crimes by the cop, either. Although I maintain the cop could have acted in ways to lower the escalation of this, nothing he said was inappropriate and he didn't even really raise his voice. If you see a guy acting weird in your hood you call police (we all would), and a cop will come and ask them what they are doing. Hell, you can, too.

You might have a point if the suspect said nothing and just tried to walk on his way and then was stopped but that didn't happen. He engaged.
 
realibrad said:
In this case, the cop did have reasonable suspicion. A call(s) were made about someone in the area that seemed suspicious. The cop goes up to the guy, asks him what he is doing, and asked for ID. A cop can ask anyone for ID, but depending on the situation, a person can decline. The suspect in this case, over reacted and acted very angry toward the officer. The suspect then put his finger in the cops face. That seems safe enough, but in that range, a fist can be thrown very quickly before even a trained fighter could react.

If you had someone that angry that close to you with their hand in your face and a shovel in the other hand, are you going to assume you are safe? It would be impossible to react to anything at that close of a range, weapon or not.

I would guess that the reason the cop reached out was not to push, but to make the guy put his hands down so the cop did not get hit.

I am all for police accountability, but I dont see anything wrong with what the officer did.
Click to expand...

This. All of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top