Police Body Cam Video of Muskogee Shooting

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.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sremmos80

I think the lesson would be don't run from the police while pulling a gun.

i think the lesson would be do not run from a cop period.....and i am sure there have been unarmed people whom have run from cops still to be shot in the back

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Warning. Graphic. The police released this but it may not stay up long.



Full Story Here

Yikes. That's all I have to say.

And he had to keep yelling at the moron who kept standing there.

If a policeman tells me that someone has a gun, it would only be one time.

a reply to: Shamrock6
It was certainly a justified shooting.

What astounds me is how some people make the decisions that they do.
Run from the cop... stupid.
Stop to pick up dropped gun while being chased by cop that you ran from.... insanely freaking stupid.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Shamrock6
It was certainly a justified shooting.

What astounds me is how some people make the decisions that they do.
Run from the cop... stupid.
Stop to pick up dropped gun while being chased by cop that you ran from.... insanely freaking stupid.

I watched the video, disturbing.

I don't think I saw why he was there in the first place, was he called there for a reason? And the guy could have just gotten a fine or a night in jail for not having a licensed gun, but even then, he could have just let the cop take the gun from him and then he would not have been shot.

a reply to: WarminIndy

m.nydailynews.com...

Another article. Might not work because I'm mobile though.

In a nutshell: dude threatened his ex girlfriend, to include telling her he "had a bullet with her name on it." He followed her to church. Somebody called the PD about him being there.

Eta: given all that, he would in all likelihood not have just been given a night in lockup.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: WarminIndy

m.nydailynews.com...

Another article. Might not work because I'm mobile though.

In a nutshell: dude threatened his ex girlfriend, to include telling her he "had a bullet with her name on it." He followed her to church. Somebody called the PD about him being there.

Eta: given all that, he would in all likelihood not have just been given a night in lockup.

So the guy was a coward, threatens a girl but then runs from a cop.

That is called "terroristic threatening" or at least that is what it is called in North Carolina. Why was the church girl dating him in the first place? Did she think she could change him?

Well, at least her parents can sleep tonight not worrying about her safety.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

No the lesson is do not shoot someone unless they are trying to harm you. The question is always intent.

By going for the gun he met the requirement for the use of deadly force. A person does not have to wait to be shot at before taking actions of self defense.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


i think the lesson would be do not run from a cop period.....and i am sure there have been unarmed people whom have run from cops still to be shot in the back

Tennessee vs. Garner (1974) is the SCOTUS case dealing specifically with the use of deadly force by officers on an individual running away. The standard is deadly force cannot be used on a fleeing felon who is running away. The exception to that is if the person running away represent an immediate danger to the community at large.

** The reason for this ruling - At the time of this incident the suspect was reported to be breaking into houses. Burglary is a felony and at the time deadly force could be used against felonies. The court created the standard to prevent a universal use of deadly force for any felonies - that would have included passing bad checks, credit card fraud etc etc.

This guy ran and was pulling a gun with the officer running behind him. Had the officer not fired, and the suspect turned and fired, every single person behind the officer, including the officer himself, would have been placed in immediate life threatening danger.

While I advocate the use of body cameras, car cameras, Taser cams etc - They all must be viewed in the proper context. They are not to be viewed to critique the officers actions in a 20/20 hindsight manner. They are there to present what the officer was involved in the moment force was used.

A lot of people have bitched about law enforcement and camera requirements. what we will see now is an even higher increase in Monday morning quarterbacking from those who want to play the 20/20 hindsight game. I bring this up specifically because of the posts thus far and not one dealing with civilians behind the officer.

originally posted by: Xcathdra




While I advocate the use of body cameras, car cameras, Taser cams etc - They all must be viewed in the proper context. They are not to be viewed to critique the officers actions in a 20/20 hindsight manner. They are there to present what the officer was involved in the moment force was used.

I would agree that they are there to represent the events, but they are also there to be studied. Any police department has a need to do so, anybody else is entitled to.
As for civilian safety, multiple shots were fired.

originally posted by: smurfy


As for civilian safety, multiple shots were fired.

Multiple shots were fired, at a subject, in which there was a ditch to catch missed shots.

The person in the white car was at risk. As well as the 10+ people, buildings, homes, etc. all behind the officer. That had to be taken into consideration for safety too.

The officer was completely justified in his actions.

a reply to: smurfy

Don't get me wrong I am in favor of video / audio for this line of work. I just think people are going to judge based on what they see after the fact from a safe viewing environment.

The other point I would add because I forgot is cameras don't always show the entire event. There is an incident I like to use as an example (the vids are on youtube).

2 officers are involved in a high speed pursuit. the pursuit ends in the parking lot of a convenience type store, where the suspect bails and starts running. The dash cam shows the gun running away from the officer. a few seconds later you see that officer shoot the suspect in the back. Based on that alone the mindset is he just got a guy in the back for no reason at all and the shooting was not justified.

When you watch the second officers dash cam, which was facing the scene but at a different angle and distance, you see the suspect bail and run. On this video you see the suspect pulling something from his waste band, at which the second officer fired, prompting the other officer to engage.

The equipment can show what occurred in its field of view.

The equipment cannot convey the officers thought process.

Split second decisions that can mean life or death.

a reply to: EternalSolace

If you or anyone else is interested in learning more about how these situations work watch the video below. Its 17 minutes long and breaks down officer use of force into different segments and how the actions play out and what the officer faces. It addresses the questions like - why not try and wound the person. Why not shoot the gun out of their hands, etc etc.

originally posted by: EternalSolace


The officer was completely justified in his actions.

He probably was, but let's not talk about ditches without talking about tarmac or ricochet too, it's all in the way people say things isn't it?

a reply to: smurfy

Are you looking for a reason to get riled up about or something?

It was a dynamic situation. Dude grabbed a gun. Officer presented the best response to an imperfect situation. It's not a controlled environment, so looking for a "perfect" response with all the little boxes checked off is pointless.

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.

Thanks for the event layout. You know by now if the cop was being attacked then i am all for force but i just do not wanna watch this. In your explaination i do not understand how he would have been shot in the back if he really did turn and face the officer. It is next to impossible to shoot at someone if you are not facing them unless you shoot over your opposite shoulder.

I think it breaks down to the cop shot before a weapon was ever pointed at him. That would mean he shot too soon. Simply the act of picking something up is not considered a lethel threat but even the slightest action of pointing an object at a cop in that situation would be. My question is did the perp begin to swing an object toward the cop or was he simply picking something us while turning his head around to look behind him.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: smurfy

Don't get me wrong I am in favor of video / audio for this line of work. I just think people are going to judge based on what they see after the fact from a safe viewing environment.

All depends on people, but to talk down to people about what they think is no help.
What if there had been no second view of your gunman at the store is really what you are saying? The police have to fill in the blanks then, but are you saying there is a need to believe what a policeman says? I don't think so.
I don't think it's right to convey a hidden meaning like that.
As for the body cams, all officers should have one, and if an incident occurs like the one in this thread, all the contents and cameras should be confiscated and analysed. Bringing in new tech means doing it right from the start, not Ad Hoc. Darren Wilson had bugger all monitoring equipment in either his car, or on the person, so it was mostly his wobbly at times testimony and nothing else...but he got off.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: deadeyedick



No the lesson is do not shoot someone unless they are trying to harm you. The question is always intent.

By going for the gun he met the requirement for the use of deadly force. A person does not have to wait to be shot at before taking actions of self defense.

By stopping to pick up an object he then was givin two choices next. Either pick up an object and begin to run again or pick it up and begin to point the object at the officer and only the second is justified to take lethel force against. Officers have to be damn sure about these things. Not because the law will find an officer guilty but because God might. We all already know how the law treats cops when they shoot someone and that is no longer an issue cause they always use blind judgment but God does not. That is where karma comes into play.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Are you looking for a reason to get riled up about or something?

It was a dynamic situation. Dude grabbed a gun. Officer presented the best response to an imperfect situation. It's not a controlled environment, so looking for a "perfect" response with all the little boxes checked off is pointless.

Strewth! Your talking to the wrong person, address your rant to EternalSolace, I didn't set up 'a perfect situation' far from it.
God, I wouldn't like to be around when you have to assess a 'dynamic situation'

a reply to: Xcathdra

omg
Your reasoning in this post is sad. You want to bring up the point of bullets putting civillians in danger but i gues you were busy when an officer recently ran through the streets firing at will and missing his target 50% of the time. How convienent.

Simply having a weapon does not make you a danger to the community at large but firing that weapon does. This situation would be different and fit under the scotus ruling if he had ever fired the weapon but he never did. Simply having a weapon or something resembling a weapon does not mean you are a danger.

Pointing that weapon at someone does make you a danger as does charging an officer makes you a threat. Neither happened here.