Police Body Cam Video of Muskogee Shooting

a reply to: smurfy

I think they watched american sniper movie and have began to equate war tactics to being a peace officer.

a reply to: smurfy

Nope. You're the one going on about civilian safety in regards to the officer discharging his weapon.

I wouldn't want you around either. But thanks for finding a point of agreement

a reply to: deadeyedick

Your opinion, and that's all it is, is all well and good.

It doesn't trump case law, nor does it change what is permissible and what isn't in regards to deadly force. Permissible by law, not opinion.

a reply to: Shamrock6

A bullett in ones back does trump all your opinions.

I was hoping that since you watched the video you could give clairity on how he was shot in the back and you claim he was facing the officer.

Armed and dangerous

Being armed does not make you dangerous

Running away does not make you dangerous

Reports of threats being made does not make you dangerous

Picking up a weapon does not make you dangerous

Having the intent to escape with a weapon does not make you dangerous

Pointing a weapon at someone does make you dangerous

Substanciated claims of threats or harm being committed does make you dangerous

This is exactly what scotus was refering too!

Some of the best shooting i've seen from a PO. They normally miss a stationary target.

Ps, I believe this shooting was justified.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I already did provide clarity on it. Several posts ago.

And you're absolutely right: this is exactly what SCOTUS was referring to. Just completely wrong about how.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: deadeyedick



Guy runs from cop. Guy drops gun. Guy stops, turns around, goes back to gun, picks it up.



Don't think he's going back for it because he thinks that it's pretty. The officer isn't obligated to give dude a chance to shoot first.

I have not watched the video.

Please clear this up?

By your statments here how does he get shot in the back if he is facing the officer?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Then tell me the part where this matches the scotus ruling.

Having a weapon and running away does not give cause to be shot in the back.

The officer had not proven any claims of violence at this point.

This guy had comitted no violent crimes leading up to the situation so armed and dangerous does not apply.

I have not watched the video.

Please clear this up?


Short answer: no.

Longer answer: if you haven't even watched the video in question, how are you able to speak about the video?

Short answer: you can't.

I don't post opinions about movies I've never seen or books I've never read, unless I preface it with "I heard..." so everybody knows that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance.

a reply to: Shamrock6

OMG
So you do not ever read a thread and post your opinion?

I know of several police shooting threads where you post your opinion and guess what it is always the same no matter the circumstances.

I take it that this particular film is so complex it is not translatable into words?

You are sending a clear message here to everyone that reads this.

YOu stated he was facing the officer and i quoted the post and you said he was shot in the back.

I am asking you to clairify.

So instead of simply stating the reason your words are contridicting you choose to question my right to ask WTF?

Here is a clue. Not everyone reading this thread wants to watch someone get shot and many others do not have the bandwidth to view videos. That is why commentary is asked for when presenting videos and in this case you gave clear conflicting commentary.

You are willfully misleading at best.

photographyisnotacrime.com... op-records-shooting-killing-fleeing-man/

An Oklahoma cop wearing a body cam recorded himself shooting and killing a man who was running from him after the suspect stopped to pick up an object he had dropped during the pursuit before continuing fleeing.

At the time, McMillin is holding a cell phone in his hand.
But then as McMillin is frisking him, Walker begins running down the street with the cop giving chase.
Walker drops the object, bends down to pick it up, then begins running again as McMillin opens fire, shooting him in the back.

Other sources paint a different picture than you all do. They claim to have slowed the video and still can not make out if it is a weapon or a phone.

It is unclear to me but is there a gun in the video that is the suspects before he is shot.

This could easily be cleared up by releasing the other cam footage from the other officers.

If they do not release it then it is a sign of something fishy.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The fact is you truly are speaking from a position of self-induced ignorance. Please, take the time to watch the video before commenting on it, your opinion would carry a lot more with us if you did that simple thing. If you refuse to even watch what the OP has provided to you, then your opinion means less than words on a screen to me as well.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Many members here do not watch death porn and others do not have the bandwidth.

Any thing you would like to discount about the link i provided would help out those members.

I would not even be concerned with this if not for sham's comment about the perp facing the officer while being shot in the back.

My questions are simple.

Was the suspect fleeing away as he was shot in the back?

Was there a clear pic of the gun the suspect supposedly had at any point before he was dead or could it have been the cell phone all along that he was holding in the begining of the video?

Is there any reason anyone can think of as too why the second officers camera footage could not be released givin that they had no problem quickly releasing footage of a shooting/murder and that would stop many debates and guessing.

If we are gonna accept the second officers statments of "it's loaded"while kicking something on the ground then it would be proper to get that footage.


"self-induced ignorance"
Please do explain what part of my questions are ignorrance
I have clearly given you all grounds for every objection i make.
Even my explaining of the scotus ruling is on par with the truth.
If one commits a proven armed crime then at that point they are armed and dangerous but if one simply has weapon and someone else makes a claim about that person then they are not yet considered armed and dangerous by the scotus ruling until the statment is proven or backed up by evidence.

a reply to: deadeyedick

If you can't/won't watch it, read about it. Or maybe reserve judgement?

In any case, here are some photos for you if you can't watch the video. The first is a PDF with more background, so you may have an issue with that too.

WARNING, Graphic: See Still Photos Of Shooting In PowerPoint Presentation From Muskogee Police

A lso here.

The shooting happened on, I believe, Jan 17 and they released the video yesterday.

Witness To Fatal Muskogee Shooting Says Video Reveals Truth

The witness is the pastor in the video.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I did read and also provided links and commentary that refutes the statment a member made that he was facing the officer as he was shot in the back. I posted some clear questions for all of you that have watched and they are above your post. Just details that should be answered.

The sources here watching the video some claim he was picking something up when shot and many news outlets say he had picked it up and was turned running away when shot in the back.

The source that slowed and enhanced the video say that it was a cell phone and no gun can be clearly made out in the video.

When watching did you ever clearly see a gun in the perps hands?

Without watching i can summise that as the perp bent down to pick the cell phone up the officer decided to shoot and by the time the officer shot the perp was already fleeing away from the officer and the bullet hit him in the back. Then the second officer went over and kicked the cell phone and said it is a gun and loaded.

That is why the second video will never be shown.

No officer can tell a weapon is loaded by kicking it.

The second officer was quick in his thinking.

Everything i post can be refuated by another angle that shows nothing was planted.

Unless they release another angle then it just hurts the reputation of cops everywhere and creates an unsafe working enviroment.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
No officer can tell a weapon is loaded by kicking it.

Does not matter, police need to assume a gun is loaded until they verify that it it not.

Unless they release another angle then it just hurts the reputation of cops everywhere and creates an unsafe working enviroment.

Yes the world is unsafe, that is why there are police. And no, the fact that you automatically assume every cop plants guns on criminals shows your bias. Generally we assume people are acting in good faith until it is proven otherwise (speculation is not proof).

a reply to: Elton

I do not disagree with you.

It was more like an acting job than a protective motion.

I do not automaticly assume that.

My bias is too the truth and the points i make will likely cause unrest because others tend to question things also.

I am hoping they wait another day or two and let the questions be raised then release the other footage and then make the point like you just made about jumping to conclusions.

However logic tells me they won't do that because they are hiding someting.

They will claim it is never enough for some people and if they release the footage now they will set a bad precedent that cost too much money and time.

I do want any of my points to be answered and show that i am just a fool. However other opinions don't get that job done but make great talking points.

As a leo do you see how not releasing the multiple recordings of the event can cause social unrest and possibly make your job more dangerous by having these unanswered questions out there?

Here's the 911 call from the pastor.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Care to commentate for us?

It is not just that i am hard headed.

I really can't load videos.