Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Defend This
The boys in blue are taking a beating lately, much of it wholly unwarranted. However, on December 30th a New Jersey police officer did his part to lower the public’s trust of law enforcement. I’ll link the story because the language in the video is far outside Ricochet’s code of conduct.
The basic story goes like this: two cops pull over a car for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. During the stop the officer on the passenger side of the car views a gun in the glove compartment of the vehicle. As one might expect things escalated quickly. While the driver of the vehicle complied readily by placing his hands outside the window of the vehicle the passenger did not. (The gun had been removed at this point.)
The officer is heard repeatedly ordering the soon to be deceased passenger not to move and to show his hands. At one point the officer warns “if you reach for something you’re going to be [expletive] dead.” The passenger seems to inform the officer that he is going to exit the vehicle (the audio is weak here) to which the officer says “no you’re not” several times while attempting to both train his weapon on the man and hold the door closed. The man opens the door and exits the vehicle anyway. Even though his hands were held at about shoulder level and he was clearly unarmed the officer fired seven times (by my count, and one after the man has fallen to the ground) and his partner fired once into the man’s back.
One cannot say the man resisted arrest such as in the Eric Garner case. The officers never informed the man he was being arrested. The man was accused of no crime at all. As he was the passenger the rolling stop at the stop sign cannot be charged against him. My understanding is that unless otherwise determined, the weapon was technically in the possession of the driver of the vehicle rather than the passenger. The only thing the man seems to have done wrong is not obey a police officer during an encounter in which the man was not a accused of any crime. For this he was shot repeatedly and killed.
Logic says that when a gun is pointed at you that it is at least nominally in your best interest to obey orders of the one pointing the gun. Liberty, however, says the state does not have the power to point a gun in your face without justification, and the state especially does not have the authority to kill you for standing up rather than sitting in a vehicle.
Published in General
Darwin in action. The passenger was told to be shot if he moved and he moved. He spent 13 years in jail for shooting at cops as a teenager. The cops knew who he was at the time.
Furthermore, and trust me on this one, if I had a gun on me and wanted those cops dead I’d give me better odds than them because of a certain element of surprise and training. So I am pretty sure I can defend the cop here. Had I been in his position, I’d have done the same thing.
Now imagine the situation if it wasn’t someone imbued with magical authority powers.
A few points that I heard on a radio report, which may or may not affect your view: the senior cop knew the deceased from prior arrests, one of which was firing at an officer; this incident above happened within a week of the 2 NYC cops being shot/executed; and (from what i heard) it is not uncommon for felons to say they are ‘exiting a car to kneel on the ground’ when what they are really doing is preparing to make a run for it, or a run at the officer.
Had I been in his position I would have taken a few steps back to get a better firing stance and position, especially knowing his past. Shooting a man for crimes he committed in the past and served time for is neither justice nor good police work.
And until they do make a run for it or at the cop they are still full citizens invested with every liberty the rest of us enjoy. I could get behind Bush’s preemptive war after enough convincing, but I cannot be persuaded that preemptive policing can ever coexist with liberty.
Former cop Doug Watt has been (too) quiet lately and I’d like to hear from him on this topic.
Brian, tell your brother to phone home!
When a man with a gun pointed at you says stay still, you stay still.
The police over reach in our country is an issue but I’m not sure this is a good example.
An officer is telling you plainly not to move and you move to a position where he is more threatened. What is the defense for that action?
Felons know there are dashboard cameras and microphones. They know now what to call out to make it sound like they are complying when they are not complying.
It appears from previous conversations on this issue there is one defense that most will in some form use: Do what you are told and you won’t die.
While it is obviously unwise to defy instructions of anyone holding a gun on you, and generally poor judgement to defy a uniformed policeman, I think there should be a little higher standard for use of violence under the authority of a free society than not following instructions.
It also appears that the current standard for justified deadly violence by those pledged to protect and serve is ‘if you sense a threat, don’t take any chances, shoot’. That is how 12 year old kids with airsoft guns get shot dead by police, etc. Yes, it may mean a higher risk, but it seems to me that actual shots fired is a far more defensible standard for such violent force than ‘sensing a threat’. After all, we do ( or once thought we did) have a right to ‘keep and bear’ arms. So, just having, or even holding, a gun doesn’t really justify deadly force….
Unless you are under arrest what right does a police officer have to order you around?
What’s to defend. Cops can pretty much kill, beat, arrest you if they want. You’re either a cop or little people, always has been that way, always will be that way. It is just more obvious lately with the internet and video and all.
And when the state points a gun and you and tells you to stand still or march into the chamber?
It never ceases to amaze me that so many so-called “Conservatives” are willing to defend the worst abuses of our police state.
Seems to me a Taser would have been more appropriate in this situaiton.
This isn’t the worst abuse of our police state….there are much worse. Civil forfeiture laws and rogue cops come to mind. The SWAT no knock raids are another.
BTW KP, you asked someone to defend it so I did. I have very mixed emotions about the police. In this case though, the dead man is partially responsible for his demise. I’ve had a gun pointed at me and pointed them at others and it changes perspective.
I’m right there with you. During my night in the can I met some of the local reasons necessitating a police force. I can even rationally understand how this particular officer arrived at his behavior. However, I cannot agree with the behavior. “I was afraid” does not rightly invoke the use of deadly force.
Edit: It does not invoke the use of deadly force in a professional supposedly trained in its proper use. Were I ever to be required to kill someone to protect life or property you can bet all my training on the proper use of force would be a factor in whether or not I used it appropriately.
LOL. Taking one’s money is worse than taking one’s life? I beg to differ…
I beg to differ also. Takings one’s money is the same as taking one’s life. In order to earn money I had to spend time (a portion of my life). By taking my stuff you are in effect taking (killing) that portion of my life. You take enough of my stuff / life and I cease to exist.
The passenger clearly behaved stupidly, but I agree with what Prawn has written here. The relationship between police and the public is perverted when this is grounds for killing a man.
It cannot become acceptable for the police to mitigate their danger by increasing the danger that citizens face when encountering them. The entire purpose of a police force is to assume extra danger so the rest of us don’t have to.
A cop illegally searching a car and overtly stealing money under some garbage law( which happened many times here in Nevada recently from a rogue cop) is infinitely more offensive to me than this video. One is a crook who should be punished for his sins( our criminal cop who won’t be punished) and the other is a cop in a very very dangerous situation, heightened emotions, facing a known cop shooter, and dealing with someone who refuses to submit to authority in a life or death situation where he was repeatedly warned. I’m just not offended by watching this. There are ROE and they appear to have been met here. I’d like Wylee, Doug Watt,or Jack to opine here.
I have been disgusted by numerous police and government overreaches. This one doesn’t register with me though.
It is all too easy to criticize the man in the arena. Also it is easy to second guess his every action from the warmth and protection of ones comfy couch. I’m thinking it is a whole ‘nother ball game were it your life that on the line and a fraction of second can mean the difference between driving yourself home or an ambulance ride to the hospital. Plus these were humans, not robots, interacting with each other and I’m betting that there are a lot of facts, circumstances, and/or antecedents that we arm chair quarterbacks will never fully appreciate. Plus some of us Neanderthals just do not think as clearly as you more advanced Homo Sapiens, especially when the adrenalin is raging. Oh yea and one more thing, maybe the fact that the permanently aggrieved have put a bounty on the heads of all cops makes police work a little bit more intense than it was pre-Ferguson.
The problem with this is that a regular citizen would be on trial for murder if they had killed a man under these circumstances.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The officer says: “Get him out of the car Rog.” Perhaps the decedent took this as instructions to get out. The officer should have been more clear if he wanted the driver out while the passenger remained.
When the decedent says he’s getting out, the officer does not say: “Stay in the car.” Instead he says “Oh no you’re not!” Perhaps the decedent took this as an expression of doubt as to whether the decedent was following those prior instructions and as instructions to more vigorously get out.
I’m rather unsettled by this video — and I want to reserve final judgement — but:
Given Reid’s past criminal record, he was almost certainly a felon and, therefore, unable to legally possess a firearm. While the video doesn’t make it clear why the firearm was visible — and while it may well have legally been under the possession of the driver — it may be defensible for Days to have reacted so belligerently, if he did, in fact, recognize him.
It looked a lot more like a penis measuring contest to me but I see your point.
I am not comfortable being the police state defender so I’m bowing out here now.
In the Coast Guard, they say “You have to go out. You don’t have to come back.” Cops say “I’m going home tonight.”
I did not read the article or watch the clip. Yes and I’m sure that this cop is about to have a rectal exam. That being said, of course we can second guess the man in the arena. I’m just saying that we generally criticize him with our house slippers on when we should be trying to walk in his shoes.
I’m thinking that all cops should call in sick for about the next 4-5 weeks. Maybe then things would be put into better perspective.
On the other hand, carrying a handgun is pretty much illegal anyway in New Jersey…
It is not technically required for a police officer to actually state, ”You’re under arrest.”
Nor is it constitutionally required for one to announce the crime of arrest: