Police Release Bodycam Footage of 19 yo Dylan Noble Being Shot and Killed

Dash cams and other such surveillance technology allows for an investigation into what would otherwise be he said-she said scenario....Now we don't have to take the officers word for it, we can investigate it and actually see whether or not there was reasonable right to shoot....

North Carolina passed a law making it difficult to obtain and basically not for public consumption. How many more states will follow.

The first 2 shots are legit.
Demanding someone place their hands over their heads after being shot twice is beyond ludicrous.
The police had control once he was down and there was no call for the next 2 shots.

a reply to: roadgravel

You've never heard of a court order? NC passed a law, House Bill 972, that makes bodycam and dashcam footage off limits to the public...UNLESS COURT ORDERED...or if LEO's release the footage themselves.

A2D

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Agreed...

1 or 2 shots first.....call for backup, report the incident, wait for medical personnel, handle the situation appropriately from there....but this is all easy to say sitting behind my desk after the fact....

A2D

a reply to: ghostrager

Seems like he might have wanted them to shoot him. The phrase, "I hate my life.", and then reaching, more than once? Sad that someone would make such a decision.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Not exactly...while I do agree that stricter policies could lead to a better police state....giving an officer the right to make judgment calls isn't a bad thing....in fact the vast majority of officers show incredible restraint in pressing situations....

I agree we cant judge all cops over what a few do. But the few that make poor judgments should be punished for their mistakes, at least if they take a life based on a wrong personal judgment (Call). The police should be forced to value the life they have agreed to protect, as they point out when they state that their main goal is to preserve the safety of Our communities. This is not the case if a cop takes a life based on a bad Call. The cop have then not saved a life but taken one from the community... And have failed to preserve the safety of the community they are set to protect.

There is something very fundamentally wrong when a community starts to fear and question the autority who is set to presever and maintain their safety.

It is odd that in many cases the detained knows the Law better than the Law inforcer. In many cases this will escalate the tentions between the detained and the Law inforcer, and the detainee automatically would risks his her life With some cops.
It is like it is wrong to question Your rights to a cop. That is not healthy and is not how you try to preserve the safety in a community. Its more like a Challenge of authority between the citizen and the Law inforcer. Where the Law inforcer have to put his/her hand on the gun to show and win authority. That is how you controll Your community With fear.

In many cases the police Project fear rather than common ground.

It's important to take note of the technology we have at our disposal. Dash cams and other such surveillance technology allows for an investigation into what would otherwise be he said-she said scenario....Now we don't have to take the officers word for it, we can investigate it and actually see whether or not there was reasonable right to shoot....and the officers know this....

This does not help the suspect much if he/she is already shot dead by a bad cop Call.

A community should not Accept that a cop should be allowed to use leathal force based on bad personal Calls or because a cop is inexperianced, or poorly trained..... Just to have the incident investigated after. How do cops save lives by doing this?

Cops need to be educated, re-educated and updated to do what they tell us that they are set to do. Cops who have taken life based on bad Calls should not be allowed to carry a weapon. Because they proven that they dont have the qualifications to handle a weapon on duty. But if you want a Law inforcer who is set to project fear into the community rather than common ground, You have what you have whished for. Now you have unpredictable cops roaming the streets in the US, that you have no idea of how they will treat you when you meet them.

One worng move and you risk Your life. One bad mistake and you are shot. What a way to go by the once who are educated and trained to protect you.


We should demand more from the police, not from the pressumed suspects.... not much a pressumed suspect can do after he/she is dead.

a reply to: spy66

I'mabout to depart, I will address the rest of your post at a later time...but for now I'd just like to comment on your closing statement....

We should demand more from the police, not from the pressumed suspects.... not much a pressumed suspect can do after he/she is dead.

I would argue that compliance is the number one unmet demand in all fatal and nonfatal police wielded firearm incidents....if we can get the suspects to actually respect the authority of officers in uniform, and subsequently comply with their requests, then much less force will be used...

Not much an officer can do when a suspect is not complying with requests or demonstrating any respect for authority....it kind of forces the officer to escalate force....

A2D

doublepost....A2D

originally posted by: spy66

Well what do you think. Should cops be allowed to shoot any suspect "they" assume are armed?

You dont see a major problem With that? That gives every cops the leagal right to shoot who ever they want based on their assumption, feelings or inervision.

That means no one is safe from the cops.

No they shouldnt but this guy gave them every reason to think he was going to do something ending in a bad scenario.

It was his choice to act irrationally.

In most cases even if someone were armed if they can clearly see their hands and they convey their intentions are peaceful they most likely wont be shot.
If they are going to freak out, not comply etc. they would be acting unpredictably its just giving police a reason to shoot. if guns are already focused on a possible threat, one would think if this person wasnt planning anything stupid he would comply.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: roadgravel

You've never heard of a court order? NC passed a law, House Bill 972, that makes bodycam and dashcam footage off limits to the public...UNLESS COURT ORDERED...or if LEO's release the footage themselves.

A2D

And maybe the judge makes it illegal for the family to release it...they watch, no one else.

a reply to: choos

No they shouldnt but this guy gave them every reason to think he was going to do something ending in a bad scenario.

He gave them every reason you say: This is what the cops are educated and trained to handle. How can you state that he gave them every reason to shoot. Are you a cop?


The cops never gave this individual time to surrender. Because, what is sufficiont time before the use of leathal force towards a suspect like this is requierd?

When 3 cops are already Lock and loaded pointing their weapons at the suspect, when is the subject a iminet threat to the cops? Are you educated to give a proper response?

Is it enough for the cops just to shout commands and when they are not meat, they have leagal reason to use leathl force?
No, the suspect must be a iminent threat to the cops or towards others. Was this suspect ever a iminent threat? Are you educated to respond?


After they shot him and brought him Down they assumed that he still would be in a state to respond to commands, not knowing or giving a thought or care that the individual could be in shock do to the gunshot wound, and not in a physical state to fallow commands.

To the cops this wounded suspect was a iminent leathal threat which in my opinion he never was. Even less when he was shot the second and third time.

Is the Public really educated to support the actions the cops conducted? Probably not.

The root of the question, and in all the racial videos, boils down to this:

What should the cops do, when someone resists?

Make them sit in the "time-out" spot?

Everybody knows the cops is wearing armor and armed with several deadly weapons. You do what he says, and quickly. The problem we have is that we expect the police to behave like waiters in an upscale restaurant with cloth napkins and low-key lighting-- they are supposed to pretend that they didn't just hear you fart.

The truth is, they deal with suicidal and homicidal sociopaths. Perverts. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gein. Drug runners and pimps. And not cool pimps like in a rap video, but real pimps who rape the girls if they try to hold onto their own money, or who will disfigure a girl's face with a knife is they show signs of building up the courage to flee.

The uniforms are black to disguise the blood, piss, and toxic waste they step in on a daily basis

If a cop tells you to lie on the ground, then you hug the earth like you are making sweet love to it.
If a cop tells you to put your hands up, then your refusal to do so is you proclaiming that you want to start some shift.

a reply to: spy66

I should clarify that my reasoning only extends to the first two shots fired. not trying to justify the last two at all.

Police are responding to a person with a gun, they are not mind readers, they are human. They cannot possibly know what this persons intentions are especially if he has no intention of complying with any orders at all.

Im not educated on this to respond accurately only by opinion, as a human being who is looking out for my own safety and the safety of others, this guy who is supposed to be armed and is acting irrationally.
Does he have to open fire before the police can take him out?
Who is the poor person that needs to be shot or shot at before the police can do something?

Also if three cops are pointing their guns at a person while in cover, is no threat present? they are taking cover for a reason.

Does anyone not agree that ONE shot would have been sufficient?

a reply to: Akragon


A human body is a complex melange of different tissues of random densities. Depending on the angle of impact, a bullet may punch right through one bone and richochet off another. Additionally, the path of a bullet through flesh does not leave an open tube for blood to flow out. Bullet wounds near heavy organs (the center of mass) not bleed profusely or even dependably

so,

- it may not be immediately obvious to the shooter that a particular shot was on target.

-The person struck by a bullet may or may not go into shock; so an assailant may or may not break off the attack immediately after being struck by one bullet, or may continue even when struck multiple times.

-Frequently a person who is shot is not immediately aware of it. Victims often assume they were hit by flying debris rather than an invisible bullet; particularly if the scene is noisy or there is a sound-lag of a shot from a distance.

- One response to being shot at is to lie down to dodge bullets. So just because someone fell down does not prove you hit him. Conversely, a person continuing to charge at you doesn't prove you missed.

- Studies have shown that bullet calibers of 10 mm and smaller take at least 1 second to produce any noticeable effect on an assailant. A target may go into shock only 2-10 seconds after being hit. You could be shot or hit several times before then, or the person could flee your field of view before collapsing.

In sum, a shooting is not like a TV show or video game. Bullets have unpredictable effects on tissue, and assailants have unpredictable responses to being shot and and struck by bullets. The FBI determined that Chris Brown continued to attack a police officer with his hands even after being shot for the 4th time at point blank range.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The first 2 shots are legit.
Demanding someone place their hands over their heads after being shot twice is beyond ludicrous.
The police had control once he was down and there was no call for the next 2 shots.

Yeah the first two appeared to solve thr situation the final two seems more like an execution. But in torn here seeing that the officer had little choice to fire in thr first place do to his actions. But those final shots while he's on thr ground doesn't look good for the officer. Looks like he may be racist or more likely severe lack of training on how to handle the sitution.

a reply to: redempsh

Put adrenalin in to the mix and they might not even know they were shot.

a reply to: dragonridr

or the r-complex of the brain had been activated, and continued to neutralize the perceived threat until it was DEFINITELY gone.

How many horror movies does the heroine kill the ax-murder, and then she collapses against the door, while the crazed maniac slowly rises up as his fingers curl around the ax....

That trope sells in horror movies because it is a deep seated fear that all primates have--- that the thread is still a threat. Your ancestors who DIDN"T have that reflex got eaten.

It is a powerful instinct. Sometimes more powerful that the rational faculties are when they have just been subjected to ear-splitting gunshots and soaked in an adrenaline stew.

It will get better when the police force is manned by robots, i'm sure.