General News Police shoot and kill unarmed college student during traffic stop

Wow. Cops like him must not have taken to heart what they're teaching us. Only when every and I mean *every* other method fails do you go to deadly force. You can't just cap a guy because he's sort of threatening.

Tough call though. If the cop really was in fear for his life, it's justified. But he says he was and the opposition isn't gonna talk. :S

 

It's not justified, because only a paranoid skizho would react that way, and i would hope we screen them before giving them a badge and gun. Far more likely the cop just wanted to kill him, aka "self defense" in texas.

Remind me to never step foot in that state. This poor kid was killed for nothing. That's murder.

 

People sure do seem gun-crazy, down in those parts,and out west. Like the wild west in movies, or something. Sad.

 

I'll reserve my full opinion on the entire situation until all of the evidence is on the table, but I believe that those arguing that the cop should be put on trial for murder are ridiculous. I can entertain with the argument of using his taser, but the fact that he used force doesn't shock me in the slightest.

I don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but for a co-valedictorian this individual wasn't very smart. You don't rush out of the car when a cop pulls you over, and you sure as hell don't do it at 2 o'clock in the morning when its pitch black outside. Then begin approaching him arguing? Seriously? No matter how passive his classmates describe him, he was clearly being load and aggressive enough for a witness in a neighboring apartment to be alarmed enough to hurry outside in time for the shot. Not to mention, for you to reply "Oh, You're Gonna Shoot Me?" and keep approaching when a cop has clearly pulled his gun on you is essentially diving directly into the barrel.

I am not usually one to defend patrol officers, but there are actually times when their lives are put in danger. Acting this stupid in the middle of the night over what might have only been a simple speeding ticket is so logically unfathomable that I just don't understand. Please, someone, tell me that I'm missing something.

 

Antisocial personality disorder is the one most likely to give rise to senseless violence, though schizophrenics are also at risk. But yes, they do psychological screenings for cops, and thorough ones at that. I did it and it involves both a written test and interview with a psychologist about your answers. Not that it's not possible to get through while keeping murderous tendencies, but you don't become a police officer just so you can shoot people.

I'm not saying the cop wasn't wrong, because he probably was. I do think though that he just acted rashly and idiotically rather than with evil in his heart. Some are just too twitchy on the panic button (aka the trigger) and people with limitless potential get killed over a misunderstanding.

 

And this is why I don't think cops should wear lethal force at all time basically. Too many power-hungry paranoid bastards involved in the police force and giving those people tasers instead of guns for regular missions could save a lot of innocent lives.

 

If only it was as simple as that...

You realize a taser only works at a relatively very short distance? The probes must penetrate the skin, and the wires which transmit the charge are quite short in comparison to the range of a handgun. Even partially replacing handguns with tasers makes no sense. I think cops should definitely always be armed, especially in the US, where virtually anyone can be armed...

As for this case, I will refrain from commenting because I obviously don't have all of the story and the website seems biased. I'm quite appalled, though, that the guy pretty much egged on the officer by saying, "You're gonna shoot me??" Smart move, man.

 

From a CBS News Article:

I'm not going to comment much, but all I will say is that you should not (unless so ordered) get out of your vehicle during a traffic stop. Doing so will immediately put the officer on "red alert" mode, so to speak.

 

that is totally true

 

The cop likely made a hasty decision, but I know if I saw a seemingly possessed man show arrogance and sarcasm [in] my face, taunting death, I would go white over the circumstances.
I have a hard time believing a murderous intent towards a stranger, nor do I feel like either are innocent; if so we would not have a story.
At the end of it all, it is saddening for all parties. Peace to them.

 

That anybody would defend a policeman killing an unarmed civilian shocks me, but I suppose I'm not as desensitized to this sort of thing as American posters. Over here this would be a national scandal and I like to think that the cop would end up in jail for a long time let alone lose his job.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt the officer had any way to know that the civilian did not have a firearm on him. Remember, this happened in the US, where firearms are very common, to say the least. Officers have no choice to be on their guard, and I guess I kinda see why this guy might have freaked out. Now, I have no way of knowing how he actually handled the situation, but I can see why it was a scary one.

 

I definitely agree with this.

First, let me add that I obviously don't believe in random killings or shit like this.

However, we do not - and I will emphasize this - have all the information.

I am no rocket scientist, but the "you're gonna shoot me?" line is aggressive. Or, it sure seems like it.

I know better than to do the things that apparently happened. It seems like it's drug related, but that's just my opinion. (The above points are not to say that it means someone should be killed. I will add that I think there's something rotten for both sides....but we can't put blame on either party, YET.)

What I hope for is that we can find a way to look at a situation and not jump straight to judgment. We should say "wow, that's horrible that a person got shot! Why would that happen? We need figure this out."

I am a very big supporter of the justice system (I know, it's not about that, but it's close.) I find it to be sad that we automatically assume all police officers are bad. That scares me for this world.

That, or maybe next time someone needs assistance, you fend for yourself?

 

I'm not going to take a side. It may (against the expectations that police brutality bring) have been a genuine case of self-defence.

On the other hand, I won't believe a police press-statement, and will doubt any possible inquiries; cover-ups seem to be the forté of too many police departments.

 

Yea, I'm reserving judgement on the shooting itself for the moment. It seems confusing and unclear to me, which I consider a sign that it is best to wait until the investigation progresses to form an opinion. However, I do have a technology nitpick. A taser is not a substitute for a firearm, and is not intended to be used as such. In fact, it's not really intended for situations involving potential deadly weapons at all. Tasers are for subduing unruly people as a situational alternative to soft/hard hand tactics, impact weapons, or chemical sprays. They aren't for defending yourself from someone who wants to fuck you up, and the companies branding them as home defense tools are extremely irresponsible.

 

It's so easy to play devil's advocate for either position in this.

Since so many mods seem to understand the police officer's reaction, I figured I would chime in with my own input.

Deadly force is a highly regulated and very strict protocol. I have no knowledge covering the enforcement sector but merely the legal aspect in this.

As most may agree, deadly force is used as the final resource by police officers to deter crime or subordinate an *ALLEGED criminal. Furthermore, some say that it is a required function in enforcement. However, implying that the police officer in the article was legally or ethically secure in his decision is both a gross fallacy and a twisted philosophy.

Foremost, the education required by police officers is very little in comparison to other professional careers. Unfortunately, they receive judicial immunity while there are no considerable responsibilities handed to them. Without proper consultation of clients, lawyers can have their license to practice law suspended. This police officer will find no relative punishments to killing an unarmed citizen. The imbalance here is plain and requires no further explanation.

Many might question the fact that, due to the sensitive nature of enforcement, these officers need such professional liberties to fulfill the purpose of their jobs. This is an important concept but one for another paper. That being said, time and again we can see how devastating the power of police officers can be when abused.

Finally, even though the victim did not follow a legal edict (of remaining in your car), the officer's response was wickedly immoral and grotesquely unprofessional. Deadly force is always to be reserved until required (*at the officer's sole discretion). Nevertheless, deadly force is ALWAYS relative to the situation itself.

Additionally, deadly force is RARELY a necessary part of enforcement. There are MANY other options available to subdue or subordinate an *alleged criminal. Perhaps the most well-known options are the classic tazer, but sidearms can also be used to incapacitate someone by shooting in the leg, shoulder, arm, hips, et cetera. If an officer cannot safely aim in such areas without risking the life of the suspected offender, then the necessity:risk ratio would differ.

Despite all this information provided, I will at last provide a clear personal opinion on the subject. It is unfortunate what happened and I hope, as I assume he will, the officer will be brought to a federal court where scrutiny and impartiality will discover whether he retains his career.

 

Oh, I completely agree. I was only saying that I could entertain the idea because those were the arguments that were made in the comments of the article. On the grounds that what has been said is true, most officers would still choose their firearm over their taser in that situation because in immediate danger tasers don't cause incapacitation quickly, nor completely, enough in there is a possibility that an aggressor has a weapon.

 

I'm sorry, but you are advocating an egregious violation of firearm safety protocol. A gun should never, ever, under any circumstances be fired with the intent to wound or incapacitate. Gunfire is not that accurate, no matter how well trained you are. You cannot place that round with enough accuracy to avoid major blood vessels while causing the necessary damage to stop the suspect, and the chance of missing widely and causing life threatening injury is too great. Furthermore, limbs are incredibly difficult to hit on purpose. If you have time to intentionally aim for a limb and the ability to risk not hitting it, you aren't in a situation where you need to be shooting at all. If you do not need to kill, you do not fire a gun.