Officer Involved Shootings

[WyattandDoc]

I will be retiring in 245 days/ I am glad I survived 29 years so far... Hope rest of the days go by without an incident, but trouble is my middle name.

Sick Time pays out at 50%...Use it!!!!! LOL and congrats

[micro911]

Sick Time pays out at 50%...Use it!!!!! LOL and congrats

I have been using some.

[SansSouci]

I just don't like when a DA came out and immediately condemn the officer. In the eyes of the public, the officer is guilty already. Where is the due process?

When the officer is acquitted, the public cries out "Justice for xxx.!" In my opinion, when the officer was acquitted, then the justice was served. It is that the outcome was different than what the public wanted. But, they don't like it anyways unless the verdict was in "their favor."

micro911,

You've nailed it. The tox report on the suspect takes 6 weeks, so the investigation can't be concluded before then. How did the DA know within days that the cop committed a crime? Or is the DA a political dirt bag?

I saw the video. The suspect started his car and used it as a deadly weapon. The officer responded in a manner consistent with law.

[SansSouci]

Media said he is not wanted for murder or some felony. But, when an officer stops a driver, how does he know the driver is not wanted for a murderer until he checks out the driver?

Everything is after the fact and the media is doing a good job blowing it out big.

micro911,

You've just explained why I no longer watch news. It's entertainment designed for ratings that justify advertising rates.

How does a talking head KNOW what has happened if he has no direct knowledge of an incident? He doesn't. So he assumes...

[SansSouci]

Jim, in the U of C shooting, there is a LOT of fishy in the mix. The two other responding officers admitted to initially making innaccurate statements at the scene.

pacrat,

As we know, witnesses often tell conflicting stories. It's not that they're lying. It's more likely perceptions. Cop are lay witnesses. Especially after witnessing a traumatic event, it's reasonable that their statements might not be congruent, which is an important fact, assuming your source has it right, and I doubt it does. Ongoing criminal investigations are confidential. Cops involved are ordered not to talk about them. So how would your source know of conflicting statements? Anyway, if officers are telling conflicting stories, to me that implicates impartiality. They obviously did not conspire to fabricate a story. They merely told it as they perceived it. The completed investigation will be definitive. Based upon only the video, I'd expect the cop to be exonerated, which leads one to ask why he was arrested and charged with murder.

As far as "fishy" in the mix, I'd appreciate it if you could explain.

Thanks.

[pacrat]

pacrat,

As we know, witnesses often tell conflicting stories. It's not that they're lying. It's more likely perceptions. Cop are lay witnesses. Especially after witnessing a traumatic event, it's reasonable that their statements might not be congruent, which is an important fact, assuming your source has it right, and I doubt it does. Ongoing criminal investigations are confidential. Cops involved are ordered not to talk about them. So how would your source know of conflicting statements? Anyway, if officers are telling conflicting stories, to me that implicates impartiality. They obviously did not conspire to fabricate a story. They merely told it as they perceived it. The completed investigation will be definitive. Based upon only the video, I'd expect the cop to be exonerated, which leads one to ask why he was arrested and charged with murder.

As far as "fishy" in the mix, I'd appreciate it if you could explain.

Thanks.

A better choice of words on my part would have been "apparently fishy". When comparing what little is "known" of the incident at the time. Compared with published reports and eye witness accounts.

assuming your source has it right,

Not actually "My Source". Just as the opinions of the DA and the GJ are not "My Opinions". With what is known at this time. I believe they both rushed to judgement to cover their butts politically. And used what they "chose" to be relevant info as cause. Much of which has already been shown to be innaccurate.

Only repeating what the published info was. Not posting it as "my" opinion.

In Ferguson, a dozen witnesses claimed they saw Poor Mike Brown get shot in the back 20 times on his way to college.

A bit exaggerated on my part, but meant to show my opinion of the accuracy of "eye witnesses" in racially fueled BSM cases. I also personally believe that "some" supposed eye witness accounts are outright lies. Such was evident in the Michael Brown, Ferguson case.

The "eye witness" was interviewed curbside by BSM talking head a day after the incident. Said Cop had both hands in clear view of outside the car and was holding onto door handle. Video clearly shows officer reaching into vehicle at time of the suspect accelerated. I believe he was attempting to shut off car. Just my impression, not supported by any facts in evidence. Video also shows a fleeting glimpse of a large scratch/abrasion on back of officers left hand. One BSM published report stated officer had no evidence of injury to left hand or arm.

So how would your source know of conflicting statements? Anyway, if officers are telling conflicting stories, to me that implicates impartiality.

And LtJim said

I smell something fishy, why would an officer who knows he is on video (body cam) decide to shoot someone without being in fear for his life/GBH. Other officers are on the video stating he was dragged, but they are already being called liars is the press.

First two officers on scene after the shooting were also U of C campus cops. What they said at the time is clearly on their body cam footage, which was released. What they said intitially, at the time, did not jive with what their cameras vid or audio showed. Their official statements and debriefs, are accurate. And agree with the body cams. My source is their own body cam footage.

My own personal opinion of this incident. Is that I don't have enough of the complete story to form a personal opinion at this time.

JM2c

[micro911]

It appears to me that the "justice" is not what it used to be. The so called justice is what the "public" wants these days.

No one cries about justice when a murder suspect was acquitted, but they do when an officer was acquitted of any wrong doing. Double standard?

I saw an article that people want "justice" for the Cecil the lion. Obviously, they want to hang the dentist who shot the lion. I thought he paid the guide and followed the guide's instructions to shoot the lion. Where is the outcry for people who get killed in Compton almost daily?

[SansSouci]

pacrat,

Since prosecutors control grand juries, that a grand jury indicted anyone is wholly insignificant in determining guilt.

From what I saw of the video, the cop is innocent.

What did you hear other cops say that implicates guilt?

[pacrat]

I will try one more time. Your quotes underlined, my responses are in bold.

pacrat,

Since prosecutors control grand juries, that a grand jury indicted anyone is wholly insignificant in determining guilt.

I agree totally. A GJ is nothing but a one sided tennis match where the accused isn't even allowed an attorney or to present evidence. He is just a target for a prosecutor to hit balls at. Hence this quote

Charges were filed after a Grand Jury indictment. That's one fast GJ Indictment for sure. But with overwhelming evidence against the officer. What choice did they have?

It is the BSM whores who are inferring guilt due to an indictment orchestrated by the DA.

From what I saw of the video, the cop is innocent.

From what "I" saw of the video. The few seconds between the suspect closing the door when the officer opened it and asked the suspect to remove his seat belt. At which time the "OFFICER REACHED INSIDE THE CAR". [which was clearly shown] ............................And the officer winds up on his keyster in the street, is a jumbled mess. With only the audio being "semi" clear. The shot is fired during the jumbled mess portion of the vid.

That is why I've not formed a personal opinion.


What did you hear other cops say that implicates guilt?


"I" heard nothing the other cops "said" that implies guilt by anyone. Why would you ask that question? Have you actually read, what I have actually written? Have you actually watched all three of the body cam vids that were released online?

What I did hear, is the 2 officers that got there [seconds after] the incident. And had no active part in the incident itself. Make initial, on scene statements, that conflicted with what they later admitted, they did not actually see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2rSNytAxQ

In the YouTube link at 5:45, 7:02, and 11:35, the responding officer states "I saw it". [paraphrasing]. He and his trainee both made such statements. Both of their own cams showed they could not have seen what they said they saw. Even though both of their cams audios picked up that they both made the "I saw it" statements on scene. There was a press release from the DA that they would not be charged for making false statements. Their official after action reports did not claim they saw the actual incident.

IMO, Their statements should not have any effect on the actual investigation as to whether the shooting itself was justified or not. Because they weren't there at the time.

The proven inacurrate statements made by responding officers at the scene "after" the incident. And the proven inaccurate statement made by the supposed "eyewitness". Both lend a lot of "fishy" to the mix and do nothing but muddle what should be a thurough and unbiased investigation into the loss of a life, and the ruination of another.

Why someone would escalate a traffic stop for a missing license plate. Into an OIS and loss of their own life, is beyond my comprehension. Only the guy who refused to listen to reason can answer that question. And he's not talking.

[Jookslee]

**** the crooked cops and lapd along with the coorupt

IF U ARE A COP AND CROOKED THEN U DESERVE TO BE PROSECUTED

[noozeyeguy]

Question from a layman: was reaching into the car for the keys a sound tactical move? Seems to me to be a "no," but I'm not LE. Thoughts?

[IrishJoe3]

Question from a layman: was reaching into the car for the keys a sound tactical move? Seems to me to be a "no," but I'm not LE. Thoughts?

Hindsight is 20 20.....


I'm sure simply snagging the keys sounds like a great option when you are standing next to the family mini van that just got broadsided during the pursuit.

[micro911]

IF U ARE A COP AND CROOKED THEN U DESERVE TO BE PROSECUTED

Of course bad cops will be prosecuted, but "prosecuted before the completion of the investigation" by the media and public is not good.

[Country_Jim]

IF U ARE A COP AND CROOKED THEN U DESERVE TO BE PROSECUTED

Tough guy, all caps. Though I agree crooked cops should be prosecuted as should other criminals. In fact, I guarantee you won't find any LE on this board that think a crooked cop should get a pass.

Now if you are accusing the officer in the U of C incident of being crooked, I would counter that that by all acounts of his career (according to reports) he is a good cop.

As far as the shooting goes, I am leaning towards it being justified, things happen quickly and if I'm being dragged whether two feet or twenty I'm just as scared for my life.

Stay safe.

[micro911]

I have participated in many officer involved shooting investigations. It takes a while to find all the facts and wrap up the investigation. I just do not like a DA came out next day and accusing the officer. Why not wait until the investigation was over? Officers are not entitled to due process?