I think the point in the set of videos is the idea of "point of view".
If you were on the review board, or jury, and you ONLY saw the first video, you may have doubt about the officer's reaction. But after seeing the second video from a different angle, the BG's threatening action becomes clear.
This should be a lesson for all of us, as video cameras are everywhere. It may be nice to have a video to show you were "in the right", but that same video can be your worst nightmare if the angle does not "show" everything that happened.
This is also not limited to video, but witnesses. The "point of view" of witnesses can change what they saw. (We won’t get into a discussion of how a witness' opinion can change what they "think" they saw).
In this case it took way too long to make the right decision. Someone could have been killed for failure to act when the use of deadly force became eminent. As soon as the threat was discovered and the gun was raised in such a combative nature, a good partner would have fired his weapon, downing this suspect. As you can see it only takes one second for the retreating perp to become the sucessfull aggressor. He could have actually killed both police officers and managed to make his way inside the store where he could have taken hostages.
I Agree Here...
Once he pointed (anything) at the officers...done deal...2CM...1H...repeat dosage as needed...
Originally Posted by rhawk
Man, when I saw the first video I would have said it was NOT justified, but the slow motion on video 2 clearly shows him aiming at the officer.
I would have done the same exact thing, except I would have made a head shot, or at least tried. He was clearly an idiot and he made the choice which ended up costing him his life and I have no pity for him.
I paused the video when the BG was pointing it right in front of the dash camera. It is obviously an LG flip phone. The casing you all are seeing is the left officer ducking and shooting at the same time. The BG definately has a phone NOT a gun. However the officers didn't know that. And if I were in their situation I likely would have done the exact same thing. Actually, I probably would have shot him the first time he displayed the weapon and pointed it in a firing manner. As far as whether or not the officer of the right was shooting too late, and too much. Unlike citizens police officers have a duty to protect the public. The supreme court case Tennesse vs Garner in 1985 mandated that while LEO's cannot shoot "fleeing felons" they can shoot someone whom they know to be an "immenent danger to society". So even if this BG was trying to get away, the fact that he assaulted to LEO's with what was thought to be a deadly weapon definately in my opinion amounted to "immenent danger to society".
Wow!! A very bad situation. I was very surprised at the amount of rounds the officiers had to fire also. That dude must of had a death wish. Why the officer that he turn his back on didn't tackle him is beyond me.
Wow! Im almost positive the first officer who held his gun to the BG's head while the BG was pointing his "phone" at the other officer KNEW it was a phone. Do you think he would NOT have shot if he had actually seen a handgun?
Anyway, too bad someone had to die.
If BG wanted to survive the encounter, he should have called ahead to let the policemen know that he would be threatening them with a cell phone.:rolleyes:
Cell phone firearms have been out for a while now.
I'm totally serious...
"On the outside, it looks like any other cell phone, but lying beneath the exterior is a .22-caliber pistol thats capable of firing four rounds in rapid succession. Twist the phone, load up the top half with .22-caliber bullets, and fire away using keys 5-8."
As for this case it would have been great if the police had had a TASER or K9 unit available to them to stop and detain him.
But they didn't and seeing as he walked off the shots to his upper torso like his name was Michael Myers, the officer had little other choice but to take him in the head aside from a hit to his pelvic girdle.
Lesson reaffirmed: When the po-po have their guns drawn and yell for you to 'STOP!', you stop yourself or they will do it for you.
I think the cops did the right thing by shooting him and continuing to shoot him even when he turned around and, apparently, was trying to leave. He had already been ordered, at gun-point, to STOP. Besides, if he had gotten away, he might have called someone with that thing.
"Sir, step away from the phone, do it now; you have no more minutes!":rofl:
Originally Posted by Vermicious_Canid
One of the reasons you can no longer bring a cell phone into court. They have also figured a way to turn cell phones into bombs.
This is a non-issue regarding wether or not to shoot. The video made national news a few months back not because of the shooting but due to the fact the LIBERAL NEWS channels intentionally refused to show the other cop car video angle that clearly showed the perps gun. Clearly they were making an attempt to present cops in a bad way. Remember GUNS KILL PEOPLE not the perps stupidity.
Here's my .02
I'm amazed at how much more I could learn from the situation after seeing all the video angles and slowing the frame rate. The video quality is horrid compared to how much easier it would have been to see this for yourself in person thus I trust the leo's judgement.
At first I just thought some drunk guy was walking away from the leo then got blasted. After I watched it a few times it made the situation far more clear.
My critique would be that leo on the right shouldn't have got that close to the perp bc he exposes himself to more danger and his partner would have a tougher time shooting the perp.
I think the shooting was totally justified even if it was a cell phone. Part of the problem is that people (perps and everyone else) needs to consider than anyone with a gun is not fooling around. Do what they say or expect to get shot or you have to decide to draw yourself.
Perps need to understand that leo's and defending homeowners will kill you if you don't do what they say and they're lucky to get a verbal comand at all.
First of all I agree that the cops were completely justified.
After doing a little research on the web, it turns out it was without a doubt a cell phone.
The idiots name was Marquise Hudspeth.
Here are a couple of news articles on it: